(PC) Kahaku v. Wallace ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL KAHAKU, No. 2:20-cv-1807 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 14 K. WALLANCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. Defendants seek a ninety-day extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s “voluminous” 19 discovery requests which consist of at least 210 pages. (ECF No. 24 at 2.) Subsequently, 20 plaintiff filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order to allow him time to receive 21 and review defendants’ discovery responses, and file a motion to compel further responses. As 22 discussed below, the parties’ motions are granted. 23 Plaintiff’s Complaint 24 Plaintiff alleges that defendants K. Wallace, A. Bustamante, T. Freitas, J. Vina, E. Speer, 25 J. Canela, N. Hang, and G. Ellis conspired to retaliate against plaintiff by conducting multiple 26 retaliatory cell searches because plaintiff filed lawsuits in which plaintiff received monetary 27 settlements. (ECF No. 8.) 28 //// ] “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 || 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 Plaintiff propounded multiple discovery requests to the eight defendants, consisting of at 9 || least 210 pages. Given the large number of defendants and the volume of such discovery 10 || requests, defendants show good cause for the requested ninety-day extension of time to respond. 11 || Defendants are granted an extension to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests, including any 12 || request for production propounded to defendants Bustamante and Ellis, until September 14, 2021. 13 || Given such lengthy extension, defendants are cautioned that the court is not inclined to grant 14 || further extensions. 15 In light of such extension, plaintiff's request for additional time to review such discovery 16 || responses and prepare a motion to compel further responses, is also well-taken. The discovery 17 || deadline is extended to December 14, 2021, and the pretrial motions deadline is extended to 18 | March 14, 2022. All other provisions of the prior scheduling order (ECF No. 22) remain in full 19 | force and effect. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 24) is granted; 22 2. Defendants shall serve their responses to all of plaintiff's interrogatories, requests for 23 || production of documents, and requests for admissions, set one, on or before September 14, 2021; 24 3. The discovery deadline is extended to December 14, 2021; and 25 4. The pretrial motions deadline is extended to March 14, 2022. All other provisions of 26 || the prior scheduling order (ECF No. 22) remain in full force and effect. 27 | Dated: June 28, 2021 kahal 807.ext.dse 28 Fel Arn □ KENDALL J.NE TINTITED STATES MA CTETE ATE TINncEe