govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-5_24-cv-04567-2

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
MARKKIS PORSCHE SONIER, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
CDCR, et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 
MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY, 
“MOTION IN OPPOSITION” TO 
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR 
EXTENSION OF TIME 
Re: ECF Nos. 62, 63, 64 
 
 
Plaintiff Markkis Porsche Sonier, a pro se prisoner; filed a motion seeking discovery and a 
motion expressing opposition to Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a dispositive 
motion. See ECF Nos. 62, 63, 64. 
As to Sonier’s motions for discovery, see ECF Nos. 62 and 64, the Court already explained 
in a prior order that “the proper remedy to address any discovery concerns is for Sonier to work 
with Defendants to resolve them, then file a motion to compel discovery under Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 37” if those concerns are not addressed through the meet and confer process. ECF 
No. 61 at 4. The Court also explained that it “will not consider a motion to compel that does not 
include information regarding meet and confer attempts.” Id. As Sonier does not include what 
meet and confer attempts, if any, he made prior to filing, his motions for discovery are DENIED 
without prejudice to Sonier first working with Defendants to obtain the discovery he seeks. 
As to Sonier’s motion “in opposition” to Defendants’ requested extension of time to file a 
dispositive motion, see ECF No. 63, which the Court granted on June 10, 2026, Sonier’s motion is 
DENIED. In his motion, Sonier alleges that he is prejudiced by Defendants’ 30-day extension of 
time due to his fading memory; he also accuses—in conclusory fashion—Defendants of seeking 
the extension of time in bad faith. While the Court is concerned about continued delays, the 

 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
delays in this matter are not solely attributable to Defendants’ actions. In addition to the 
documented service issues in this matter, Sonier: filed numerous motions; requested a one-year 
stay of this matter; and refused to sit for a deposition on April 29, 2026. Each of these events 
contributed to the delays in this case. Defendants showed good cause for a short extension of time 
to file their dispositive motion following Sonier’s rescheduled deposition. See ECF Nos. 43, 59, 
61. Nothing in Sonier’s motion warrants a different outcome. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 18, 2026 
 
Noël Wise 
United States District Judge 
 

Passage view · GavelSight