(PC) Hawkins v. Shearer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEON HAWKINS, No. 2:19-cv-02295-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. AMENDED DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 A. SHEARER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion 19 to be allowed more than 25 admissions as well as defendant’s motion for a 45-day extension of 20 time to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. ECF Nos. 34, 37. Defendants filed a partial 21 opposition to plaintiff’s motion on January 29, 2021. ECF No. 35. For the reasons outlined 22 below, the court will grant the motions and modify the previously issued discovery and 23 scheduling order governing this case. 24 I. Factual and Procedural History 25 This case is proceeding on plaintiff’s complaint alleging an Eighth Amendment excessive 26 force claim against defendants Shearer, Sharp, and Deitchman who were employed at California 27 State Prison-Sacramento. ECF Nos. 1 (complaint), 13 (screening order). After this case did not 28 settle, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on January 11, 2021. ECF No. 33. 1 On January 18, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to be allowed to submit more than 25 2 requests for admission to each defendant. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff indicates that he does not have 3 sufficient funds to depose each defendant so he needs additional admissions “to properly build his 4 case….” ECF No. 34 at 1. Defendants filed a partial opposition to the motion pointing out that 5 neither Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the court’s Discovery and Scheduling 6 Order limit the number of requests for admissions that plaintiff may propound. ECF No. 35 at 1. 7 Therefore, defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s requested relief. However, defendants reserve the 8 ability to object to the requests for admissions “on the grounds of undue burden, 9 disproportionality, or on other grounds.” Id. at 2. 10 In a separately filed motion, defendants request a 45-day extension of time to respond to 11 plaintiff’s discovery requests. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff served 11 sets of discovery requests on 12 defendants between January 18, 2021 and February 7, 2021. ECF No. 37 at 3. The deadline for 13 responding to each set ranges from March 8, 2021 to March 29, 2021. Id. at 3-4. Due to 14 logistical problems associated with working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic as well 15 as defense counsel’s other work-related responsibilities, defendants seek an additional 45 days to 16 file their responses to these discovery requests. Id. at 5-6. Defendants do not seek to modify the 17 discovery cut-off deadline of May 10, 2021 even though some of their responses would be filed 18 after this date if the extension is granted. Id. 19 II. Legal Standards 20 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 21 be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 22 good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 23 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may 24 modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 25 seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 26 III. Analysis 27 Based on lack of opposition thereto, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion to propound 28 more than 25 requests for admissions. Defendants have demonstrated good cause for extending 1 their deadline to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. However, in light of the ruling on 2 defendants’ motion, the court finds it necessary to modify the discovery and scheduling order in 3 this case. The court will sua sponte extend the discovery cut-off deadline to June 24, 2021. Any 4 motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. The pretrial motions deadline 5 will also be extended by 45 days to September 23, 2021. 6 IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party 7 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 8 intended as legal advice. 9 The court is granting your motion to be allowed more than 25 requests for admissions as 10 well as defendant’s motion for a 45-day extension of time to respond to your discovery requests. 11 As a result, the deadlines governing this case are being extended by 45 days. The discovery cut- 12 off date is extended to June 24, 2021 and the pretrial motions deadline is moved to September 23, 13 2021. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff’s motion to be allowed more than 25 admissions (ECF No. 34) is granted. 16 2. Defendants’ motion for a 45-day extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s discovery 17 requests (ECF No. 37) is granted. 18 3. The court sua sponte amends the previously issued Discovery and Scheduling Order 19 by extending the discovery cut-off date to June 24, 2021. Any motions necessary to 20 compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty 22 days prior to that date. 23 4. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 24 September 23, 2021. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 5. All other provisions of the court’s January 11, 2021 Discovery and Scheduling Order 2 remain in effect. 3 | Dated: March 8, 2021 Po Pg, fF /- it LE 9 4 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12/hawk2295.amendedDSO.docx 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28