1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE ANDERSON, No. 2:24-CV-0977-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 C. BABCOCK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18

. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel. See ECF Nos. 21 19 and 22. Plaintiff has filed a supplement in support of both motions. See ECF No. 25. 20 Defendants have filed oppositions to both motions. See ECF Nos. 23 and 26. Also before the 21 Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule for this litigation. See ECF No. 27. 22 In the pending motions to compel, Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants to 23 provide further responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. See ECF 24 Nos. 21 and 22. With his supplement, Plaintiff has provided the Court with copies of the 25 discovery requests and responses at issue. See ECF No. 25. Defendants have also provided the 26 Court with copies of the disputed requests and responses. See ECF No. 23. 27 / / / 28 / / / ] The Court agrees with Defendants that the discovery requests underlying 2 | Plaintiff's motions to compel were untimely. The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order 3 | for this case on September 25, 2024. See ECF No. 19. Pursuant to this order, the parties were 4 | permitted to conduct discovery through May 30, 2025. See

. Discovery requests were 5 || required to be served at least 60 days prior to this date. See

Here, as revealed in the 6 || documents attached to Defendants’ opposition, Plaintiffs discovery requests were untimely, and 7 || Defendants appropriately objected on this basis. Specifically, Plaintiffs interrogatories and 8 || requests for production were produced to prison officials for mailing on April 6, 2025.1 See ECF 9 || No. 23, pg. 20. Because this date is less than 60 days prior to the May 30, 2025, discovery cut-off 10 || date, Plaintiff's discovery requests were untimely. The Court will deny Plaintiff's motions to 11 || compel and grant Defendants’ motion to extend the dispositive motion filing deadline. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 13 1. Plaintiff's motion to compel, ECF Nos. 21, and 22, are denied. 14 2. Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule, ECF No. 27, is granted. 15 3. Dispositive motions are due within 30 days of the date of this order. 16 17 | Dated: October 14, 2025 Co 18 DENNIS M. COTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Pursuant to Houston v. Lack,

(1988), for pro se prisoner litigants, documents are considered served as of the date they are delivered to prison authorities for mailing 27 || to the Court. Here, Defendants have supplied the Court with a copy of the envelope from Plaintiff containing his discovery requests. This envelope indicates that the documents were 28 | received by prison officials on April 6, 2025.