(PC) Valera v. Vasquez ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOEL VALERA, No. 2:23-cv-00191-DAD-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 B. VASQUEZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion for an order compelling defendant Vasquez to provide 19 certain categories of evidence. ECF No. 28. He has also filed a motion for 90 additional days to 20 reply to “any current procedure in this case that requires a response.” ECF No. 29. For the 21 reasons that follow, the motions are denied. 22 The Motion to Compel. Plaintiff asks the court to compel defendant to provide plaintiff 23 with evidence spanning the past five years concerning certain misconduct claims against 24 defendant and investigations by CDCR into such claims. However, plaintiff does not identify any 25 discovery request issued to defendant seeking this information or argue that he served these 26 requests on defendant and defendant failed to properly respond. In contrast, defendant’s 27 opposition brief and the declaration of counsel attached thereto, indicates that plaintiff has never 28 served these requests on defendant; rather, he served similar requests and never filed a motion 1 | challenging defendant’s responses. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff has filed no reply brief to rebut this 2 | claim. Accordingly, there is no basis for the court to compel defendant to provide the information 3 | sought by plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B) & (a)(4). 4 Further, as argued by defendant, the deadline for filing a motion to compel passed on 5 || September 22, 2023, and plaintiff provides no reason why he should be excused from this 6 | deadline.| ECF No. 14. 7 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time does not identify 8 || what he needs extra time for. To the extent that plaintiff seeks an extension of time to oppose the 9 | pending motion for summary judgment, the request has been mooted by the filing of plaintiff's 10 | opposition and defendant’s reply (which does not argue that the opposition is untimely). 11 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff's March 18, 2024 motion to compel (ECF No. 28) is DENIED; and 13 2. Plaintiff's March 18, 2024 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 29) is DENIED. 14 15 | Dated: May 23, 2024 Lal eblidl FT ELACNM EDMUND F. BRENNAN 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | | The court makes no ruling on defendant’s additional arguments that the production sought by plaintiff should not compelled because it is privileged, confidential, and inadmissible. Henderson Lizzaraga, No. 2:18-CV-2181-JAM-DMC-P, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218010, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 26 || Nov. 19, 2020) (‘[C]ourts have found that prior complaints of misconduct made against a defendant are discoverable when sufficiently similar to the claims brought in the instant □□□□□□□□ 27 28