(PC) Head v. County of Sacramento ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES HEAD, No. 2: 19-cv-1663 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner, proceeding with this civil action. Pending before the court 18 is defendant Shelton’s motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 77.) Also pending is plaintiff’s 19 motion to reopen discovery as to defendant Shelton. (ECF No. 79.) 20 For the reasons stated herein, defendant Shelton’s motion to reopen discovery is granted, 21 and plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is denied 22 Background 23 On August 5, 2020, Magistrate Judge Delaney issued a discovery and scheduling order 24 setting the discovery cut-off date for November 30, 2020.1 (ECF No. 27.) The scheduling order 25 stated that all discovery requests pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 or 36 26 were to be served no later than sixty days prior to November 30, 2020, i.e., October 1, 2020. (Id.) 27 28 1 On October 15, 2020, this action was reassigned to the undersigned. (ECF No. 37.) 1 On September 14, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 28.) On November 2 2, 2020, plaintiff filed a second motion to compel. (ECF No. 42.) On November 23, 2020, 3 plaintiff filed a third motion to compel. (ECF No. 46.) 4 On December 30, 2020, the undersigned granted defendant Shelton’s October 30, 2020 5 motion to stay discovery pending the filing of a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. 6 (ECF Nos. 41, 52.) In the December 30, 2020 order, the undersigned vacated plaintiff’s three 7 pending motions to compel. (ECF No. 52.) 8 On April 2, 2021, the undersigned granted defendant Shelton’s January 27, 2021 motion 9 to stay discovery pending the disposition of defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended 10 complaint. (ECF Nos. 55, 60.) 11 On August 2, 2021, the Honorable Troy L. Nunley granted defendant’s motion to dismiss 12 plaintiff state law claims and denied defendant Shelton’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Wiretap 13 Act claim. (ECF No. 71.) On August 31, 2021, defendant Shelton filed an answer. (ECF No. 14 74.) 15 On September 2, 2021, the undersigned lifted the stay of discovery and reinstated 16 plaintiff’s three pending motions to compel. (ECF No. 75.) The undersigned did not reopen 17 discovery, which closed on November 30, 2020, i.e., before the December 30, 2020 order staying 18 discovery. (Id.) The undersigned found no good cause to reopen discovery for plaintiff because 19 he filed three motions to compel before the discovery deadline. (Id.) 20 In the September 2, 2021 order, the undersigned found no good cause to reopen discovery 21 for defendant Shelton based on discovery requests pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 22 31, 33, 34 or 36 because he filed the first motion to stay before the discovery deadline. (Id.) The 23 undersigned granted defendant Shelton twenty-one days to file a motion to conduct discovery 24 other than pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 or 36. (Id.) 25 On September 16, 2021, the undersigned issued an order addressing plaintiff’s three 26 pending motions to compel. (ECF No. 76.) The undersigned denied the motion to compel filed 27 September 14, 2020 as premature. (Id.) The undersigned denied the motion to compel filed 28 November 2, 2020, except for request for production no. 5. (Id.) The undesigned ordered 1 defendant to provide plaintiff with an amended response to request no. 5 within thirty days. (Id.) 2 The undersigned vacated the motion to compel filed November 23, 2020. (Id.) The undersigned 3 ordered defendant to provide plaintiff with amended responses to requests for admissions, set one, 4 and request for production of documents, set three, addressed in the November 23, 2020 motion 5 to compel. (Id.) 6 Defendant Shelton’s Motion to Reopen Discovery 7 Defendant requests that the court reopen discovery so that he may serve limited written 8 discovery on plaintiff and take plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant states that because of the unusual 9 procedural history of this case, defendant has not yet conducted any discovery. Defendant 10 contends that prior to receiving a ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss, the scope of 11 propounded discovery was unclear. Defendant contends that had the motion to dismiss been 12 granted in full, discovery would not have been necessary. Defendant states that in addition to 13 deposing plaintiff, he intends to serve plaintiff with one set of interrogatories and one request for 14 production of documents. 15 Courts have “broad discretion” to modify discovery deadlines upon a showing of good 16 cause. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 16(b)(4). The good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 18 amendment.” Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 609. 19 The undersigned finds that defendant Shelton has shown good cause to reopen discovery 20 for the limited discovery discussed in the pending motion. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to 21 reopen discovery is granted. 22 Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery 23 Plaintiff requests to reopen discovery as to defendant Shelton “for many of the same 24 reasons” raised by defendant Shelton in his motion to reopen discovery. Plaintiff alleges that he 25 (plaintiff) had “numerous issues propounding discovery to defendant Shelton due to his 26 incarceration, COVID-19 infection, long COVID diagnosis and Shelton’s lawyer opposing nearly 27 every discovery request that plaintiff submitted.” (ECF No. 79 at 1-2.) 28 //// 1 Plaintiff's November 2, 2020 motion to compel demonstrates that plaintiff served 2 | defendant Shelton with 8 requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiffs 3 || November 23, 2020 motion to compel demonstrates that plaintiff served defendant Shelton with 4 | 46 requests for admissions and 12 requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 46.) 5 Plaintiff's motions to compel demonstrate that plaintiff served defendant Shelton with at 6 || least three discovery requests prior to the discovery deadline. In the pending motion to reopen 7 || discovery, plaintiff does not specifically address why his previous discovery requests addressed to 8 | defendant Shelton were inadequate. Plaintiff also does not discuss the additional discovery he 9 || would like to conduct. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has not shown good 10 || cause to reopen discovery. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery is denied. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Defendant Shelton’s motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 77) is granted; defendant 13 Shelton may serve plaintiff with one set of interrogatories and one request for 14 production of documents within thirty days of the date of this order; defendant Shelton 15 may depose plaintiff within sixty days of the date of this order; 16 2. Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery as to defendant Shelton (ECF No. 79) is denied. 17 || Dated: October 19, 2021 18 Ad 19 KENDALL J. Wha UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 Head1663.ord(3) 24 ke 25 26 27 28