(PS) Peccia v. State of CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAKE PECCIA, No. 2:18-cv-03049 JAM AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 15 AND REHABILITATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery 19 deadline (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff is appearing in pro se. This matter is before the undersigned in 20 accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant opposes the motion. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff 21 has replied. ECF No. 46. Upon review of all arguments and briefing, plaintiff’s motion is 22 GRANTED in part, but the approved extension is for 30 days rather than the requested 180. 23 I. Relevant Background 24 Plaintiff filed this discrimination and retaliation case against his former employer, the 25 State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) on November 26, 26 2018. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff was initially represented by counsel. Counsel was permitted to 27 withdraw, and as of February 10, 2020, this matter has been referred to the undersigned as a pro 28 se case. ECF No. 22. On February 24, 2020, a pretrial schedule was issued setting an expert 1 disclosure deadline of 2/5/2021, a discovery deadline of 4/26/2021 and a trial date of 10/4/2021. 2 ECF No. 26. On February 2, 2021 plaintiff moved for an additional 45 days to complete expert 3 disclosures. ECF No. 36. That motion was unopposed and was granted. ECF No. 39. On March 4 18, 2021, plaintiff brought the motion at bar, seeking an additional 180 days to complete 5 discovery. ECF No. 40. 6 II. Discussion 7 To prevail on a request to amend a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4), the moving 8 party must establish “good cause” for doing so. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 9 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause inquiry primarily centers on the moving 10 party’s diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good 11 cause to extend the discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence 12 of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 13 Here, plaintiff argues that he has a learning disability, that the COVID-19 pandemic has 14 caused discovery delays, and that he is still working full time and his hours make it difficult for 15 him to stay within the timeframe for discovery set by the court. ECF No. 40 at 3-6. Defendant 16 counters that plaintiff has not been diligent and there is no good cause for an extension of time. 17 ECF No. 43 at 2-5. Defendant argues plaintiff has not sent any discovery since July 17, 2019. Id. 18 at 3. Defendant asserts that despite being awarded an extension of time to file expert witness 19 disclosures, plaintiff failed to make a timely disclosure. Id. Defendant argues plaintiff fails to 20 explain what steps he has taken over the past 17 months to diligently attempt to complete 21 discovery within the established deadlines. Id. at 4. Defendant notes that the requested extension 22 of time would necessitate an entirely new schedule for all remaining deadlines in this case. Id. at 23 5. Plaintiff responds that the various COVID-19 related shutdowns have made discovery 24 difficult, he is not an attorney, and his schedule and learning disabilities have made things 25 difficult. ECF No. 46. 26 The court is sympathetic to the fact that the most recent schedule in this case was entered 27 just before COVID-19 caused delays and shutdowns that could have impacted discovery. 28 However, the court is also aware that plaintiff has had over a year to conduct discovery and with 1 | reasonable diligence, should have been able to serve defendants with additional discovery 2 | between July 2019 and the April 2021 deadline. The court is also mindful of defendant’s 3 || reasonable concern regarding delays to other case deadlines. The court therefore GRANTS 4 | plaintiffs motion only in part; the discovery deadline is extended by 30 days, to May 25, 2021. 5 || Motions to compel must be heard not later than April 30, 2021. No other deadlines are altered. 6 Ill. Conclusion 7 For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 40) is 8 | GRANTED insofar as the discovery deadline is extended by 30 days, to May 25, 2021. Motions 9 || to compel must be heard not later than April 30, 2021. No other deadlines are altered. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | DATED: April 6, 2021 ~ 12 Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28