(PC) Taylor v. Jiminez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, Case No. 1:19-cv-00068-AWI-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY 13 v. DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 JIMINEZ, et al., (ECF No. 62) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Shauntae Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Jimenez,1 Rodriguez, Huckleberry, Rye, 20 and Hernandez for excessive force and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth 21 Amendment. 22 On December 20, 2021, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting the 23 deadline for completion of all discovery for August 20, 2022 and the deadline for filing all 24 dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) for 25 October 31, 2022. (ECF No. 40.) 26 On December 22, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to 27 Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, together with a motion to stay discovery related to Plaintiff’s 28 1 Erroneously sued as “Jiminez.” 1 excessive force claim. (ECF Nos. 45, 46.) The Court found good cause to stay discovery related 2 to Plaintiff’s excessive force claim pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for judgment on the 3 pleadings. (ECF No. 47.) 4 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling 5 order, filed July 11, 2022. (ECF No. 62.) Defendants request that the Court modify the discovery 6 and scheduling order to allow Defendants ninety days to depose Plaintiff and file their dispositive 7 motion, after the Court rules on the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants 8 contend that they are waiting for a resolution on the motion for judgment on the pleadings before 9 taking Plaintiff’s deposition, to avoid the time, expense, and duplication of fees that would result 10 from taking two separate depositions. (Id.) 11 Plaintiff has not yet had the opportunity to file a response, but the Court finds a response 12 unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 13 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 14 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 15 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 16 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 17 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 18 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 19 Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause to modify the 20 discovery and scheduling order. The Court finds that Defendants have been diligent in filing the 21 motion or judgment on the pleadings, and it would be an efficient use of the resources of the 22 Court and the parties to resolve the scope of Plaintiff’s claims prior to Defendants conducting 23 Plaintiff’s deposition and reaching the merits of this action. Finally, the Court finds that the relief 24 granted here will not result in prejudice to Plaintiff. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 26 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, (ECF No. 62), is 27 GRANTED IN PART; 28 /// 1 2. The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines are VACATED; and 2 3. The Court will reset the deadlines following resolution of the pending motion for 3 judgment on the pleadings. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: July 12, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28