(PC) Ramsey v.Rasheed ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAVON LOVOWE RAMSEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02544-JAM-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT: 11 v. (1) PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR SUBPOENAS ARE DENIED; 12 RASHEED, et al., (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 13 Defendants. IS DENIED; 14 (3) PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ARE GRANTED; 15 ECF Nos. 27, 29, 31, 34, & 35 16 17 18 Plaintiff Ravone Ramsey is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983 action. He has filed two motions requesting subpoenas, ECF Nos. 27 & 29, a motion to 20 compel, ECF No. 31, and two motions for extension of time to submit his discovery responses, 21 ECF Nos. 34 & 35. I will grant him additional time to file his discovery responses and deny his 22 other motions. 23 Motions for Subpoenas 24 Plaintiff intends to subpoena a vitreoretinal surgeon and requests subpoenas to do so. 25 ECF Nos. 27 & 29. I will deny these motions because Federal Rule of Evidence 706, which 26 governs appointment of expert witnesses, does not relieve plaintiff of his obligation to pay the 27 fees and expenses for any expert that he seeks to call. See Gamez v. Gonzalez, No. 08-cv-1113- 28 MJL (PCL), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61369, * 2 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2010). Plaintiff is free to retain 1 an expert at his own expense without court intervention. Both motions for subpoenas are denied. 2 Motion to Compel 3 Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel and asks that I order defendants to respond to his 4 requests for admission. ECF No. 31 at 1. He does not state when, if at all, these requests for 5 admission were served on defendants, nor has he included a copy of the requests. Accordingly, I 6 lack information that would be needed to rule in plaintiff’s favor and will deny this motion 7 without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew this motion and include the necessary information if these 8 requests remain outstanding. 9 Motions for Extension of Time 10 Plaintiff has asked for additional time to submit responses to defendants’ discovery 11 requests. ECF Nos. 34 & 35. I will grant his request. In so doing, I will modify the scheduling 12 order, since discovery in this action closed on May 20, 2022. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff shall have an 13 additional thirty days from the date of this order’s entry to submit his responses to defendants’ 14 discovery requests if he has not already done so. The new deadline for completion of discovery is 15 September 12, 2022. Any motions to compel must be filed by that date. Dispositive motions are 16 now due by December 12, 2022. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s requests for subpoena, ECF Nos. 27 & 29, are DENIED. 19 2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 31, is DENIED without prejudice. 20 3. Plaintiff’s motions for extension of time, ECF Nos. 34 & 35, are GRANTED. He 21 shall submit his responses to defendants within thirty days of this order’s entry. 22 4. The schedule for discovery and dispositive motions is modified as follows: 23 a. Discovery, including the filing of any motions to compel, must be 24 completed by September 12, 2022. 25 b. Dispositive motions must be filed by December 12, 2022. 26 27 28 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: _ July 13, 2022 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28