Santiago

(PC) Arzaga v. Santiago

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 11, 20212:18-cv-00313California924 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL ARZAGA, No. 2:18-cv-0313 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER E. SANTIAGO, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Two filings are before the court. Background On July 2, 2020, the undersigned issued a discovery and scheduling order which provided that discovery would close on November 3, 2020. (ECF No. 48.) On December 1, 2020, plaintiff’s motion to stay discovery was denied, and the discovery deadline was extended until March 1, 2021, solely for the purpose of locating and serving defendants Santiago, Victoriano, and Haluik, and to resolve any motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s August 15, 2020 request for production of documents. (ECF No. 64.) The court confirmed that in all other respects, the July 2, 2020 scheduling order remained in effect; discovery is closed, and the pretrial motions deadline was extended to June 1, 2021. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.