(PC) Brookins v. Dwivedi ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY L. BROOKINS, 1:18-cv-00645-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AS PREMATURE 13 vs. (ECF No. 59.) 14 RAJENDRA DWIVEDI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Barry L. Brookins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on 19 May 10, 2018, against sole defendant Dr. Rajendra Dwivedi (“Defendant”) for failing to provide 20 adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) 21 On May 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents and for 22 sanctions. (ECF No. 59.) 23 Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied as premature. Discovery in this case has not yet been 24 opened.1 When this case is ready for discovery to proceed the court will issue a scheduling order 25 opening discovery. Discovery will not be opened until after Defendant has filed an answer to the 26 27 1 On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff notified the court that he had served discovery requests on Defendant. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff is not permitted to participate in discovery until after discovery has been opened 28 by the court. Defendant is not required to respond to Plaintiff’s premature discovery requests. When discovery is opened, Plaintiff may re-serve his discovery requests on Defendant. 1 complaint.2 Therefore, it is not time for discovery in this case, and Plaintiff’s motion to compel 2 shall be denied. 3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel, 4 filed on May 21, 2020, is DENIED as premature. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: May 23, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 Defendant Dwivedi filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2020. (ECF No. 46.) Under Rule 12(a)(4), the filing of Defendant’s motion to dismiss extends the time for Defendant to file an answer until after the 27 motion to dismiss has been resolved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4); See Hernandez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 1:17-cv- 00211-DAD-EPG, 2018 WL 10323280 (E.D. Cal. November 2, 2018). 28