(PC) McCowan v. McKeown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND MCCOWAN, No. 2:21-cv-0369-DAD-CKD-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 L. MCKEOWN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer in this civil rights action filed 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 6, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to compel additional 19 discovery from defendants. ECF No. 66 at 4; see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) 20 (establishing prison mailbox rule). Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on July 2, 2024. 21 ECF No. 68. For the reasons explained below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to compel. 22 In his motion, plaintiff seeks a court order compelling defendants to supplement their 23 responses to his request for production of documents. ECF No. 66. In addition, plaintiff seeks to 24 depose all five defendants in this case without establishing that he has the necessary funds to pay 25 for the requested depositions. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff attached his request for production of 26 documents to defendants as well as purported notices for defendants’ depositions. Id. The 27 motion to compel does not explain why it was filed months after the discovery deadline in this 28 case. ] In opposition, defendants point out that plaintiffs discovery requests as well as his motion 2 || to compel were all filed after the discovery deadline in this case had passed. Therefore, they are 3 || untimely. Even addressing the merits of the motion to compel, defendants contend that their 4 || objection to plaintiff's request for production of documents was appropriate and that plaintiff 5 || does not demonstrate his ability to pay for defendants’ depositions. ECF No. 68. Defendants 6 || attached their complete response to plaintiff's request for production of documents. ECF No. 68 7 || at 6-9. 8 According to the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order in this case, the parties were to 9 || serve all discovery requests by November 17, 2023. ECF No. 56 at 5. The deadline for 10 || completing discovery was set as January 16, 2024. ECF No. 56 at 5. This same order explained 11 || that any necessary motions to compel were required to be filed by January 16, 2024. Id. 12 Plaintiff's motion to compel was untimely as discovery closed five months before it was 13 || filed even utilizing the prison mailbox rule. For this reason, the court denies the motion. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 66) 15 || is denied as untimely. 16 | Dated: December 23, 2024 / ae □□ / a Ly a "7 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 || 12/mcco0369.m2compel.untimely 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28