(PC) Bradway v. Rao ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL J. BRADWAY, No. 2:20-cv-0436 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR. VASHODARA RAO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. On September 23, 2021, under the mailbox rule, plaintiff filed a motion “concerning 19 discovery request,” which the undersigned construes as a motion to compel responses to his 20 requests for admissions, sets one and two. Defendant filed an opposition; plaintiff did not file a 21 reply. As set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is denied as untimely. 22 I. Discovery and Scheduling Order 23 On March 31, 2021, a discovery and scheduling order issued setting the deadline for filing 24 motions to compel discovery as July 22, 2021. (ECF No. 61.) “All requests for discovery 25 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty 26 days prior to that date,” or May 24, 2021.1 (ECF No. 61 at 5.) 27 1 Because May 23, 2021 falls on a Sunday, the parties had until Monday, May 24, 2021. Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 6(a). 1 II. Applicable Legal Standards 2 Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 3 move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 37(a)(3) (B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 5 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 6 ‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 7 of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 8 Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 9 Plaintiff bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are the 10 subject of his motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why he believes the 11 response is deficient, (4) why defendants’ objections are not justified, and (5) why the 12 information he seeks through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. 13 Ramirez, 2016 WL 3196738 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 14 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“Plaintiff must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his 15 motion to compel, and, for each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought 16 is relevant and why defendant’s objections are not justified.”). 17 III. Discussion 18 It is undisputed that the requests for admissions, set one, were served on June 13, 2021, 19 and the requests for admissions, set two, were served on June 27, 2021. Despite the untimeliness 20 of the first set, defendant served responses on July 9, 2021. (ECF No. 68 at 10-13.) Defendant 21 objected to the second set as untimely propounded. (ECF No. 68 at 6-8.) 22 As to the first set of requests, plaintiff fails to identify the specific discovery request he 23 challenges or to demonstrate why such response was inadequate or improper. Thus, plaintiff 24 failed to meet his burden as to the requests for admissions, first set. McCoy, 2016 WL 3196738 25 at *1. 26 Plaintiff objects that he did not receive the responses to the second set until 58 days later. 27 However, discovery responses are governed by the mailing date, not the date the propounding 28 party receives the responses. Moreover, defendant is not responsible for delays caused during 1 | delivery, including plaintiff’s transfer to a different prison. 2 Finally, the deadline for filing motions to compel was July 22, 2021. Plaintiff's motion 3 || was not filed until September 28, 2021, over two months after the deadline for filing such 4 || motions expired. Therefore, plaintiff's motion is denied as untimely. Although plaintiff 5 || discusses various reasons why he could not earlier file his motion to compel, he failed to explain 6 || why he did not timely serve the discovery requests, or explain why he failed to seek an extension 7 || of the discovery deadline prior to July 22, 2021. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 68), construed 9 || asa motion to compel discovery responses, is denied as untimely. 10 | Dated: October 27, 2021 Aectl Aharon 12 KENDALL J.NE /brad0436 tc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28