Adrian L. Cervantes v. Dalizu Elsen

Opinion

ADRIAN L. CERVANTES, Case No. 23-cv-00811-NW

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S v. MOTIONS TO COMPEL, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE Defendant. Re: ECF Nos. 34, 35

On January 14, 2026, Defendant Elsen Dalizu filed a motion to compel discovery responses from Plaintiff Adrian L. Cervantes, a pro se state prisoner. ECF No. 34. Cervantes did not file an opposition. Dalizu thereafter filed a motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion on January 22, 2026. ECF No. 35. The Court addresses each motion below. A. Motion to Compel A motion to compel may be made if “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection will be permitted . . . as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). Rules 33 and 34 require that a responding party serve answers and any objections to interrogatory requests and respond in writing to any production requests within 30 days after being served with the requests, unless a different timeframe is stipulated to or ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). Moreover, unless the Court orders otherwise, a represented party must be served through counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1)-(b)(2). Dalizu provides evidence showing that she served Cervantes with interrogatories and requests for production of documents on August 26, 2025, and November 4, 2025, with the latter 2025 letter accompanying Dalizu’s discovery request, defense counsel warned Cervantes that failure to respond by November 18, 2025 would result in their filing of a motion to compel with this Court. ECF No. 34-1 at 7. Dalizu had not received Cervantes’ responses, or any other communications, as of the filing of the motion for extension of time. Given Cervantes’ complete lack of response to Dalizu’s timely served discovery requests and timely filed motion to compel, the motion to compel is GRANTED as specified below. Cervantes is advised that each party has an obligation to timely respond to properly served discovery requests. If a party chooses to ignore that obligation, the Court has the authority to impose a variety of sanctions, including dismissal of the lawsuit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A), (d)(3); Sanchez v. Rodriguez, 298 F.R.D. 460, 470–73 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (dismissing pro se prisoner’s action for failure to respond to discovery and failure to comply with three court orders to respond to discovery); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262–1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); see also Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed). B. Extension of time Upon due consideration of Dalizu’s motion for extension of time to file a dispositive motion, and the supporting declaration of counsel, the Court finds that Dalizu has shown good cause and GRANTS the motion so the parties may continue the discovery process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4). However, to expedite resolution of this case, the Court grants an extension of time until June 15, 2026, rather than August 10, 2026, as requested. Dalizu may request additional time if necessary if she can show good cause at that time. The Court orders as follows: 1. The motion to compel (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED. Cervantes is ordered to respond to the pending discovery requests within 30 days. Failure to do so may result in the ] failure to prosecute. 2 2. The motion for an extension of time to file a dispositive motion (ECF No. 35) is 4 a. The dispositive motion must be filed and served no later than June 15, 2026. 5 b. Any opposition to the dispositive motion must be filed and served upon the 6 moving party no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. 7 c. reply in support of the motion, if any, must be filed and served no later than 8 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. 9 d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 11 Dated: February 11, 2026

Noél Wise 13 United States District Judge

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28