(PC) Rodriguez v. Henry

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JULIAM RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:20-CV-1659-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER D. HENRY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion, ECF No. 34, to compel discovery responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

20 In their motion, Defendants state that they served written discovery consisting of interrogatories and requests for production of documents on June 17, 2022. See ECF No. 34, pgs.

22 3-4. As of the deadline to respond – August 4, 2022 – Defendants had not received any responses from Plaintiff to either discovery request. See id. at 4. Defendants sent Plaintiff a meet-and- confer letter on August 9, 2022. See id. As of August 30, 2022 – the date Defendants filed the instant motion to compel – Plaintiff still had not served any responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. See id. Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery, the Court finds that any objections are waived and will direct Plaintiff to serve discovery responses without objection.

28 See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel, ECF No. 34, is granted.

3 2. Plaintiff shall serve responses to Defendants’ interrogatories and requests | for production, without objection, and produce responsive documents within 30 days of the date || of this order.

6 3. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to 90 days from the || date of this order.

9 | Dated: May 4, 2023 Ss..c0_, 10 DENNIS M. COTA 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE