(PC) Stanford v. Pena ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES R. STANFORD, Case No. 2:18-cv-03007-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME 13 v. AND DENYING HIS MOTIONS TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER, FOR 14 A. PENA, et al., RECONSIDERATION, AND TO APPOINT AN EXPERT WITNESS 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 45, 46, 49, 53, & 54 16 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 17 MOTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME 18 ECF Nos. 50 & 56 19 20 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several 21 motions are currently pending before the court, most of which are addressed herein. 22 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order 23 Plaintiff has filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the deadline for 24 completion of discovery. ECF No. 45. A court’s scheduling order “may be modified only for 25 good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause inquiry 26 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 27 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, the “court may modify the pretrial schedule if it 28 cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. (internal 1 quotations and citations omitted). “Relevant inquiries [into diligence] include . . . whether 2 matters that were not, and could not have been, foreseeable at the time of the scheduling 3 conference caused the need for amendment.” United States ex rel. Terry v. Wasatch Advantage 4 Grp., LLC, 327 F.R.D. 395, 404 (E.D. Cal. 2018). 5 Plaintiff argues that he only learned of the need to conduct additional discovery after the 6 January 13, 2021, deadline for completion of discovery. ECF No. 45 at 1. He explains that in 7 April 2021, the court granted in part his motion to compel and ordered defendants to produce a 8 redacted copy of the November 19, 2016, incident report. Id.; see ECF No. 42 at 3. He contends 9 that prior to receiving that report, he was not able to determine “what methods of discovery to 10 use, and how to use them.” ECF No. 45 at 1. 11 Plaintiff’s argument does not meet the good cause standard. While plaintiff might not 12 have known the contents of the incident report prior to the discovery deadline, he has not 13 explained why he needs additional discovery after reviewing the report, nor how the report 14 compelled him to change methods of discovery. His motion to modify the scheduling order is 15 denied. 16 Motion for Reconsideration 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel, ECF No. 46, which I construe as a motion for 18 reconsideration because it asks the court to review its prior ruling on a motion to compel, see ECF 19 Nos. 40 & 42. Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider two of the six discovery requests that it 20 declined to grant in its April 2, 2021 order; specifically, the production of all security camera 21 footage of the incident, and all complaints filed against defendants during their employment with 22 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. ECF No. 46 at 2. The court 23 previously denied the former on the ground that defendants have produced all relevant footage in 24 their possession and denied the latter because it was overbroad. See ECF No. 42. 25 Generally, a court will reconsider a prior order when it “(1) is presented with newly 26 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 27 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. AC and S, Inc., 5 28 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Under the court’s local rules, a motion for reconsideration must 1 specify “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or 2 were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why 3 the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 4 230(j)(3)-(4). 5 Plaintiff’s motion neither offers any argument as to why these conclusions were incorrect 6 at the time nor cites any newly discovered evidence that might justify reconsideration of the 7 court’s earlier analysis. See id. at 3-4. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion fails to show that 8 reconsideration is appropriate and must be denied. 9 Motion to Appoint Expert Witness 10 Plaintiff asks the court to appoint an expert witness to analyze video footage, noting that 11 be believes defendants inappropriately altered the footage. ECF No. 49 at 2-3. Although courts 12 generally have discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 to appoint an unbiased, neutral 13 expert, see Gorton v. Todd, 793 F. Supp.2d 1171, 1179 (E.D. Cal. 2011), plaintiff has offered no 14 basis for his contention that the footage was altered—apart from his claim that the footage does 15 not reflect that facts as he alleges them. Plaintiff’s request is denied. 16 Motions for Extensions of Time 17 Both plaintiff and defendants request extensions of time. Defendants seek additional time 18 to file a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 50, which they have since filed, ECF No. 51. 19 Plaintiff has filed two motions seeking additional time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion 20 for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 53 & 54; he has since filed his opposition, ECF No. 55. 21 Finally, defendants request an extension of time to reply to plaintiff’s opposition to their motion 22 for summary judgment, ECF No. 56; they have since filed their reply, ECF No. 57. Good causing 23 appearing, these motions are granted, and the relevant pleadings are deemed timely. 24 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 45, is denied. 26 2. Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 46, is denied. 27 3. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint an expert witness, ECF No. 49, is denied. 28 4. Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion 1 | for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 53 & 54, are granted. 2 5. Defendants’ motions for extensions of time to file a dispositive motion, ECF No. 50, 3 | and areply to plaintiffs opposition to their motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 56, are 4 | granted. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 9, 2021 Q_——. 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28