(PC) Leonard v. CSP Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON THOR LEONARD, No. 2:22-cv-01231 WBS SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 For the second time, plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Discovery” requesting an order 18 compelling the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to produce security 19 camera footage from California State Prison- Sacramento from June 30, 2020. (ECF No. 37; see 20 also ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff’s motion addresses the relevance and necessity of the material 21 requested. (Id. at 5-6.) 22 As plaintiff was previously informed in the discovery and scheduling order filed on March 23 21, 2024 (ECF No. 27 at 5-6), and in the previous order denying plaintiff’s first “Motion for 24 Discovery,” requests for discovery material such as camera footage shall not be filed with the 25 court except when required by Local Rules 250.1, 250.2, 250.3, and 250.4. Instead, discovery 26 requests shall be served on the opposing party’s attorney if the opposing party is represented by 27 counsel. (Id. at 5 (emphasis added).) The court’s prior order also cautioned the parties that filing 28 discovery requests or responses, except as required by rule of court, could result in an order of 1 sanctions. (Id.) As plaintiff was previously informed when the court denied his initial “Motion for 2 Discovery,” “plaintiff must serve a discovery request to a named defendant by serving it to 3 defendants’ counsel before requesting this court to compel production of the material.” (ECF 4 No. 35 at 32 (emphasis added).) 5 Plaintiff’s motion for discovery does not indicate plaintiff served a request for the desired 6 security camera footage to defendants’ counsel, and defendant opposes the motion to compel, 7 indicating plaintiff did not do so. (ECF No. 38 at 2.) Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse non- 8 compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s local rules, or the court’s 9 orders. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Pro se litigants are expected to 10 know and comply with the rules of civil procedure. See American Ass’n of Naturopathic 11 Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for an 12 order compelling discovery which plaintiff has not requested from defendant’s counsel will again 13 be denied without prejudice. 14 Plaintiff also moves to extend the discovery deadline and defendant does not oppose the 15 request. Good cause appearing, the court will adjust the case schedule to allow plaintiff an 16 opportunity to request the desired security camera footage from defendant’s counsel. All requests 17 for discovery pursuant to Rules 31, 33, 34, or 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be 18 served not later than sixty days prior to the discovery deadline, and the court will not look 19 favorably on a further request to extend the discovery deadline for this purpose. 20 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 21 1. Plaintiff’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 37) is denied without prejudice. 22 2. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to extend the discovery deadline (ECF No. 36) is granted 23 to the extent that the close of discovery is extended to 75 days from the date of this 24 order solely for the purpose of plaintiff’s request for discovery consisting of security 25 camera footage. 26 3. On the court’s own motion, the dispositive motion deadline is extended to 120 days 27 from the date of this order. 28 //// ] 4. Inall other respects the court’s prior Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 27) 2 is unchanged. 3 5. Plaintiff shall promptly serve his request for the desired security camera footage on 4 defendant’s counsel. 5 | DATED: November 8, 2024 6 Emdo 7 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28