(PC) Green v. Link ( 2020 )

1 XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517 Attorney General of California 2 ALICIA A. BOWER, State Bar No. 287799 Acting Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 CAITLIN R. SMITH, State Bar No. 286891 Deputy Attorney General 4 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 5 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-6393 6 Fax: (916) 324-5205 E-mail: Caitlin.Smith@doj.ca.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendant Link 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 11 12 13 VENCIL GREEN, Case No.: 2:19-cv-1324 JAM KJN P 14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY 15 v. DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 16 J. LINK, 17 Judge: Hon. Kendall J. Newman Defendant. Trial Date: None Set 18 Action Filed: July 16, 2019 19 20 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On July 30, 2020, defendants filed 21 a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order by extending the discovery deadline to 22 December 1, 2020, and the dispositive motions deadline to March 9, 2021. Due to the COVID-19 23 pandemic, counsel has been unable to schedule plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant seeks to reopen 24 discovery because she “would like the opportunity to send additional discovery requests if more 25 information becomes known during the deposition.” (ECF No. 53-1 at 3, citing ECF No. 53-2 at 26 2 (request brought to enable defendant to “send any relevant discovery request after the 27 deposition.”).) 28 //// wOASe 2 LD UVM LOVETT EAINTT IN RATIO i POO OY Ove 1 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 2 | Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 3 | quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 4 | cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 5 | ‘ifit cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 6 | Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 7 | Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). 8 While the undersigned understands counsel’s inability to depose plaintiff due to the 9 | COVID-19 pandemic, the undersigned does not find good cause to generally extend the discovery 10 | deadline. The parties have had an opportunity to conduct written discovery, and the current 11 || discovery deadline does not expire until October 2, 2020. Defendant’s request is based on the 12 | potential “if more information becomes known during the deposition. Therefore, the court 13 | grants defendant’s request to extend the discovery, but only for the sole purpose of deposing 14 | plaintiff. The existing October 2, 2020 deadline for written and all other discovery remains in 15 | effect. The request to extend the dispositive motions deadline is granted. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to modify (ECF No. 53) 17 | is partially granted: 18 1. The discovery deadline is extended solely for purposes of taking plaintiff's deposition 19 | on or before December 1, 2020; 20 2. The dispositive motions deadline is extended to March 9, 2021; and 21 3. In all other respects, the March 11, 2020 discovery and scheduling order remains in 22 | effect. 23 | Dated: August 2, 2020 Fens Arn 29 J ierers24.t0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28