(PC) Rodriguez v. Albonico ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ARNOLD RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:19-cv-1108 MCE AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 N. ALBONICO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to serve responses to 18 defendants’ request for production and interrogatories. ECF No. 51. The responses were served 19 on February 1, 2021, id. at 1, making plaintiff’s responses due March 22, 2021.1 Good cause 20 appearing, the motion will be granted. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 51, is GRANTED. 23 2. Plaintiff shall have an additional thirty days, up to April 21, 2021, to respond to 24 defendants’ request for production and interrogatories. 25 26 1 Although the motion was not received until after the deadline had passed, the certificate of service avers that it was mailed prior to the deadline, making the motion timely under the prisoner 27 mailbox rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials 28 for mailing). 1 3. Defendants’ shall have until May 5, 2021, to file any motions necessary to compel 2 || discovery related to their request for production and interrogatories served on February 1, 2021. 3 || DATED: March 29, 2021 ~ 4 Httwn— ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28