(PC) Smith v. Gonzales ( 2020 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY SMITH, 1:17-cv-00436-DAD-GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 13 v. (ECF No. 74.) 14 J. GONZALES, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COPIES 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 75.) 16 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 17 ORDER (ECF No. 76.) 18 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR 19 ALL PARTIES 20 New discovery deadline: 07/20/20 21 New dispositive motions deadline: 09/20/20 22 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action 26 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time 27 and a request for copies of documents. (ECF Nos. 74, 75.) On April 28, 2020, Defendants filed a 28 motion to modify the court’s Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 76.) II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS 2 Plaintiff requests a ten-day extension of time to meet the court’s deadline for serving 3 responses to discovery requests. Plaintiff also requests copies of the documents he submitted to 4 the court. Plaintiff asserts that he does not have access to the law library or his legal records. 5 Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted and the discovery deadline shall 6 be extended by this order. As discussed below in this order, the discovery and dispositive motions 7 deadlines shall both be extended for all parties. 8 9 Plaintiff’s request for copies shall be denied. The Clerk does not ordinarily provide free 10 copies of case documents to parties, and Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to send 11 him free copies. To request copies of the documents that Plaintiff has requested, Plaintiff must 12 submit a written request to the Clerk, payment for copies, and a self-addressed envelope affixed 13 with sufficient postage. 14 The documents that Plaintiff submitted to the court, a motion for extension of time and a 15 request for copies, together are 3 pages long. The Clerk charges $.50 per page for copies of 16 documents. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Copies of up to twenty pages may be made by the Clerk’s 17 Office at this court upon written request and prepayment of the copy fees. The fact that the court 18 has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to free copies of 19 documents from the court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Clerk is not required to furnish copies 20 without cost to an indigent petitioner except by order of the judge. 21 Plaintiff was advised in this court’s First Informational Order issued on March 30, 2017 that 22 “[i]f a party wants a file-stamped copy of a document returned for the party’s own benefit, a copy 23 24 for that purpose and a pre-addressed, pre-paid postage envelope must be included. The Court will 25 not make copies of filed documents or provide postage or envelopes for free even for parties 26 proceeding in forma pauperis.” (First Informational Order, ECF No. 3 at 3 ¶I.) 27 Plaintiff also requests the court to serve a copy of his motion for extension of time on 28 Defendants. This has already been done as a matter of course. III. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 2 On April 28, 2020, Defendants requested modification of the court’s Scheduling Order 3 issued on February 4, 2020, to extend the deadlines for discovery and for the filing of dispositive 4 motions. 5 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 6 and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 7 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a 8 scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot 9 meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the prejudice to the party 10 opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show 11 due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic 12 v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 Defendants request extension of the discovery deadline from May 20, 2020 to July 20, 2020, 14 for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition, and extension of the dispositive motions 15 deadline from July 20, 2020 to September 20, 2020, “due to limitations caused by the COVID-19 16 pandemic.” (ECF No. 76 at 4:20 and Declaration of James Matheson at David E. Kuchinsky at 6.) 17 The court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines in the 18 court’s Scheduling Order. Defendants have shown that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirements of the order. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to modify the 19 Scheduling Order, filed on April 28, 2020, shall be granted. The deadlines shall be extended for 20 all parties without limited purpose. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s request for extension of time, filed on April 27, 2020, is GRANTED; 24 2. Plaintiff’s request for free copies, filed on April 27, 2020, is DENIED; 25 3. Defendants motion to modify the court’s Scheduling Order, filed on April 28, 2020, 26 is GRANTED; 27 4. The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from May 20, 2020 to July 28 20, 2020 for all parties to this action; 5. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from 2 July 20, 2020 to September 20, 2020 for all parties to this action; and 3 6. All other provisions of the court’s February 24, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling 4 Order remain the same. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: April 30, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28