(PC) Rodriguez v. Henry ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIAM RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:20-CV-1659-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. HENRY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending 18 before the Court is Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 34, to compel discovery responses from 19 Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 20 In their motion, Defendants state that they served written discovery consisting of 21 interrogatories and requests for production of documents on June 17, 2022. See ECF No. 34, pgs. 22 3-4. As of the deadline to respond – August 4, 2022 – Defendants had not received any responses 23 from Plaintiff to either discovery request. See id. at 4. Defendants sent Plaintiff a meet-and- 24 confer letter on August 9, 2022. See id. As of August 30, 2022 – the date Defendants filed the 25 instant motion to compel – Plaintiff still had not served any responses to Defendants’ discovery 26 requests. See id. Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery, the Court finds that any 27 objections are waived and will direct Plaintiff to serve discovery responses without objection. 28 See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel, ECF No. 34, is granted. 3 2. Plaintiff shall serve responses to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests 4 | for production, without objection, and produce responsive documents within 30 days of the date 5 || of this order. 6 3. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to 90 days from the 7 || date of this order. 8 9 | Dated: May 4, 2023 Ss..c0_, 10 DENNIS M. COTA 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28