(PC) Priest v. Kuersten ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PRIEST, No. 2: 21-cv-0058 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BENTLEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for sanctions and second 19 motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery. (ECF Nos. 39, 40.) For the reasons stated 20 herein, plaintiff’s motions are denied. 21 Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 22 On December 7, 2021, the undersigned granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s 23 motion to compel. (ECF No. 37.) In relevant part, the undersigned ordered defendant Kuersten 24 to provide plaintiff with further responses to interrogatories nos. 2 and 4 within thirty days of the 25 date of the order. (Id.) 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 In the pending motion, plaintiff appears to argue that defendants failed to comply with the 2 December 7, 2021 order requiring them to provide further responses to interrogatories nos. 2 and 3 4. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff also appears to argue that defendants failed to comply with the order 4 directing defendants to provide plaintiff with documents in response to these interrogatories. (Id.) 5 The undersigned did not order defendants to provide plaintiff with documents in response 6 to interrogatories nos. 2 and 4. On February 3, 2022, defendants filed an opposition to the 7 pending motion demonstrating that they provided plaintiff with further responses to 8 interrogatories nos. 2 and 4.1 (ECF No. 41.) Because defendants complied with the December 7, 9 2021 order, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. 10 In the December 7, 2021 order, the undersigned also granted plaintiff’s request to extend 11 the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 37.) The undersigned ordered that the parties may serve further 12 discovery requests until January 11, 2022. (Id.) In the pending motion for sanctions, plaintiff 13 alleges that on December 19, 2021, he served defendants with a second set of interrogatories and 14 a request for production of documents. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that defendants failed to respond to 15 these requests. (Id.) 16 Plaintiff signed his motion for sanctions on January 9, 2022. (Id.) Therefore, the time for 17 defendants to respond to the discovery requests served on December 19, 2021, had not yet run 18 when plaintiff filed the motion for sanctions. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for sanctions based 19 on defendants’ failure to respond to the discovery requests served on December 19, 2021, is 20 denied as premature. 21 Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery 22 Plaintiff requests that the discovery deadline be extended for eight months. (ECF No. 39.) 23 For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 24 Courts have “broad discretion” to modify discovery deadlines upon a showing of good 25 cause. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 16(b)(4). The good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 27 1 Defendant Kuersten’s further responses to interrogatories nos. 2 and 4 appear adequate to the 28 undersigned. (ECF No. 41-2 at 3-4.) 1 amendment.” Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d at 609. 2 The original discovery deadline was January 28, 2022. (ECF No. 28 at 5.) All requests 3 for discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 and 36 were to be served not 4 later than sixty days prior to that date, i.e., on or before November 29, 2021. (Id.) 5 In his first motion to extend the discovery deadline, plaintiff requested that the discovery 6 deadline be extended for one year, i.e., until January 28, 2023. (ECF No. 32.) In the December 7 7, 2021 order, the undersigned did not find good cause to extend the discovery deadline for one 8 year. (ECF No. 37.) Instead, the undersigned granted the parties until January 11, 2022, to serve 9 further discovery requests. (Id.) Responses to further discovery requests were due no later than 10 February 11, 2022. (Id.) Motion to compel regarding further discovery requests were to be filed 11 no later than March 11, 2022. (Id.) 12 In the pending second request to extend the discovery deadline, plaintiff requests that the 13 discovery deadline be extended eight months. (ECF No. 39.) The grounds of this request are 14 defendants’ burdensome and meritless discovery requests served on plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff also 15 alleges that he is awaiting responses to his discovery requests served on defendants on December 16 19, 2021. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he requires additional time to serve follow-up discovery 17 requests. (Id.) 18 The undersigned finds that plaintiff has not shown good cause to extend the discovery 19 deadline a second time. Plaintiff served defendants with a second round of discovery requests 20 following the December 7, 2021 order extending the discovery deadline, i.e., the discovery 21 requests served December 19, 2021. Plaintiff’s speculation that he may have to serve follow-up 22 discovery requests, i.e., a third round of discovery requests, is not good cause to extend the 23 discovery deadline again. The undersigned also finds that defendants’ further discovery requests 24 served on plaintiff are not good cause to grant plaintiff additional time to serve additional 25 discovery requests. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 40) is denied; 3 2. Plaintiff's second motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery (ECF No. 39) 4 is denied. 5 || Dated: March 1, 2022 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 Priest58.ord 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28