(PC) Henderson v. Castillo ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR., Case No. 1:20-cv-01199-AWI-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 S. CASTILLO, et al., (Doc. 58) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr., is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On September 8, 2022, Defendants S. Castillo and N. Tyler filed a Motion to Modify the 21 Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 58.) Although the time for Plaintiff’s response has not yet 22 passed, see Local Rule 230(l), the Court deems one unnecessary because it finds good cause to 23 grant Defendants’ motion. 24 DISCUSSION & ORDER 25 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 26 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation & internal 27 quotation marks omitted). District courts also have “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” 28 Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). 1 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on April 25, 2022. (Doc. 51.) The 2 following deadlines were included: 3 Exhaustion Motion Deadline – 7/25/2022 4 Deadline to Amend Pleadings – 8/23/2022 5 Discovery Cut-Off Date – 9/25/2022 6 Dispositive Motion Deadline – 11/28/2022 7 (Id. at 1, 3.) 8 Defendants seek an extension of the discovery cut-off and dispositive motion filing 9 deadlines. (Doc. 58.) Defendants contend their pending motion for summary judgment for a 10 failure to exhaust administrative remedies could dispose of the case in its entirety, if the Court 11 determines that Plaintiff’s failed to exhaust those remedies prior to filing suit,1 making discovery 12 and a dispositive motion moot. (Doc. 58-1 at 1-2.) Defendants contend “absent an imminent 13 order” on their pending motion for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Defendants will 14 be forced to bear costs associated with propounding discovery and deposing Plaintiff “even 15 though such discovery on the merits of the Complaint may become entirely unnecessary.” (Id. at 16 3.) Defendants further contend extending the discovery cut-off and dispositive motion filing 17 deadlines will not unnecessarily prejudice Plaintiff and that the interests of judicial economy 18 warrant the requested modification. (Id.) Defendants’ motion is supported by defense counsel’s 19 declaration. (Doc. 58-2 [Amber N. Wipfler].) 20 Given this Court’s heavy caseload, and the pending prisoner motions on the undersigned’s 21 docket, determination of Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion for a failure to exhaust 22 administrative remedies is not imminent and is unlikely to be issued prior to the scheduled 23 deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. The Court agrees that judicial economy warrants an 24 extension of the deadlines, and that Plaintiff will not be unnecessarily prejudiced by the 25 extensions. 26 // 27 28 1 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies was deemed 1 Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. The deadline for 2 completing all discovery is extended to 60 days following the issuance of a decision on the 3 pending motion for summary judgment for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the 4 deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended to 120 days following the issuance of a 5 decision on the pending motion for summary judgment for a failure to exhaust administrative 6 remedies, if applicable. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: September 13, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28