(PC) Pittman v. Kamen ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 EDWARD SIMEON PITTMAN, 1:18-cv-01316-DAD-GSA-PC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 10 v. ORDER (ECF No. 24.) 11 DR. KAMEN, et al., NEW DEADLINES FOR ALL PARTIES: 12 Defendants. New Discovery Deadline: June 15, 2021 13 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: August 15, 14 2021 15 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL APRIL 16 15, 2021, TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY (ECF No. 27.) 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Edward Simeon Pittman (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 21 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on November 8, 2019, on Plaintiff’s Eighth 22 Amendment medical indifference claim against defendant Kamen; and Plaintiff’s First 23 Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Kamen and Hickman. (ECF No. 14.) 24 This case is scheduled for a settlement conference on May 26, 2021, at 10:00am before 25 Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (ECF No. 26.) 26 On February 4, 2021, defendants Hickman and Kamen (“Defendants”) filed a motion to 27 modify the August 4, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 24.) No opposition has 28 been filed. 1 On March 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time until April 15, 2021, 2 to respond to Defendants’ outstanding discovery requests. (ECF No. 27.) No opposition has 3 been filed. 4 II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 5 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 7 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 8 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 9 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 10 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 11 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 12 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 Pursuant to the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on August 4, 2020, the 14 current deadline for completion of discovery in this case was February 4, 2021, and the current 15 deadline for the filing of dispositive motions is April 4, 2021. (ECF No. 23.) Defendants request 16 forty-five day extensions of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines to allow time for 17 Defendants to receive Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery responses, to review Plaintiff’s 18 responses, and to prepare a motion to compel, if necessary. Defendants report that Plaintiff 19 recently requested an extension of time from Defendants to provide discovery responses, and 20 Defendants agreed to the request rather than immediately resorting to filing a motion to compel. 21 Defendants argue that extensions of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines potentially 22 avoid Defendants filing a motion to compel and allow the parties time to resolve discovery 23 informally. 24 Discussion 25 Based on the above the court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ motion to modify the 26 scheduling order. In light of the pending settlement conference and Plaintiff’s motion for 27 extension of time to file discovery responses, the court shall extend the discovery deadline to 28 June 15, 2021 and the dispositive motions deadline to August 15, 2021, for all parties. 1 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 2 Plaintiff requests an extension of time until April 15, 2021, to respond to Defendants’ 3 pending discovery requests. Plaintiff asserts that he lacks sufficient access to the prison library 4 for copies and research due to the restrictions in place because of the Covid-19 virus, and he is 5 currently awaiting the next available open library hours to complete the discovery. 6 The court thus finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time until 7 April 15, 2021. 8 IV. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the court’s scheduling order, filed on February 4, 11 2021, is GRANTED; the deadline for completion of discovery is extended from 12 February 4, 2021 to June 15, 2021, for all parties; the deadline for filing 13 dispositive motions is extended from April 4, 2021, to August 15, 2021, for all 14 parties; and all other provisions of the court’s August 4, 2020, Discovery and 15 Scheduling Order remain the same; and 16 2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, filed on March 18, 2021, is GRANTED; 17 and Plaintiff is granted until April 15, 2021, to respond to Defendants’ 18 outstanding discovery requests. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: March 22, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28