Santiago

(PC) Arzaga v. Santiago

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 9, 20212:18-cv-00313California1,142 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. Plaintiff’s motions to vacate the court’s scheduling order and to subpoena witnesses are before the court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion to vacate the scheduling order is granted; his motion to subpoena witnesses is denied. 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…

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.