(PC) Robinson v. Davey ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY L. ROBINSON, 1:17-cv-01524-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 13 vs. ORDER (ECF No. 78.) 14 DAVE DAVEY, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY 15 Defendants. DEADLINE AND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL 16 PARTIES 17 New Discovery Deadline: August 2, 2021 18 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: October 4, 2021 19 SIXTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF 20 TO SERVE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT PETERSON’S WRITTEN 21 DISCOVERY REQUESTS 22 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Anthony L. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 25 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s 26 First Amended Complaint filed on July 2, 2018, against defendant C/O H. German for use of 27 excessive force, and against defendants Sgt. A. Peterson and S. Gonzales-Thompson (LVN) for 28 providing inadequate medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 24.) 1 On January 2, 2020, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 2 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of July 2, 2020, and a dispositive 3 motions deadline of September 2, 2020. (ECF No. 61.) On April 15, 2020, the court granted 4 defendants Peterson and German’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order, extending the 5 discovery deadline to October 2, 2020, and the dispositive motions deadline to December 2, 2020, 6 for all parties to this action. (ECF No. 64.) On August 3, 2020, defendants Peterson and German 7 filed another motion to modify the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 70.) On August 10, 2020, the 8 court granted defendants Peterson and German’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order, 9 extending the discovery deadline to April 2, 2021, and the dispositive motions deadline to June 10 2, 2021, for all parties to this action. (ECF No. 71.) 11 On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the Scheduling Order. (ECF 12 No. 78.) Defendants have not filed an opposition. The motion is now before the court. Local 13 Rule 230(l). 14 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 15 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 17 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 18 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 19 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 20 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 21 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 22 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 Plaintiff requests the court to extend the deadlines to conduct discovery and file 24 dispositive motions by 120 days each because he is currently out to court at the Los Angeles 25 County Mens Central Jail on a criminal matter and does not have access to his legal property or 26 supplies needed to respond to discovery requests or otherwise litigate this case. 27 The court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines in 28 the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Plaintiff has shown that even with the exercise of 1 due diligence he cannot meet the requirements of the order. Defendants have not opposed the 2 proposed modification. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order, filed on 3 February 22, 2021, shall be granted. The deadline to conduct discovery shall be extended to 4 August 2, 2021, and the deadline to file dispositive motions shall be extended to October 4, 2021 5 for all parties. 6 III. EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT PETERSON’S 7 WRITTEN DISCOVERY REQUESTS 8 Pursuant to the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on January 2, 2020, the 9 parties were informed that “[r]esponses to written discovery requests shall be due 30 calendar 10 days after the request is served.” (emphasis in original) (ECF No. 61 at 2:5.) 11 Plaintiff reports that he received written discovery requests from defendant Peterson on 12 February 11, 2020, but he is unable to respond to the discovery requests until he has access to his 13 legal property, ink pens, legal copies, legal supplies, and envelopes. Plaintiff states that he was 14 transferred out-to-court from California State Prison-Sacramento on December 6, 2019, and his 15 property is being held there until he returns. Plaintiff also alleges that the Los Angeles County 16 Mens Central Jail, where he is currently housed, does not provide him with the supplies he needs 17 to litigate this case.1 18 The court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff a 60-day extension of time to respond to 19 defendant Peterson’s discovery requests. Plaintiff’s new deadline to serve responses to the 20 discovery requests shall be 60 days from the date of service of this order. If Plaintiff requires a 21 further extension of time, he should file a motion before the expiration of the prior deadline. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed on 25 February 22, 2021, is GRANTED; 26 27 1 Plaintiff also requests CSP-SAC to send his property to him, and the Los Angeles County Mens 28 Central Jail to provide him with supplies needed to litigate this case. (ECF No. 78 at 4:19-26.) The court shall address these requests by separate order. 1 2. The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from April 2, 2021 to 2 August 2, 2021 for all parties to this action; 3 3. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from 4 June 2, 2021 to October 4, 2021, for all parties to this action; 5 4. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time until 60 days from the date of service of 6 this order in which to serve responses to defendant Peterson’s written discovery 7 requests received by Plaintiff on February 11, 2021; and 8 5. All other provisions of the court’s January 2, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling 9 Order remain the same. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: March 18, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28