Halliday et al v. Spjute et al

Filing 313

ORDER RE: Shelly Ioane's Motion to Continue Discovery Cut-Off re 219 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/18/2015. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

GLEN HALLIDAY, et al.,

14

Plaintiffs,

15
16

1:07-cv-00620 AWI GSA

v.
KENT R. SPJUTE, et al.,

17

ORDER RE. SHELLY IOANE’S MOTION
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

Defendants.
(Doc. 219)

18
19

INTRODUCTION1

20
21
22
23
24

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Continue Discovery Cut-Off filed by Plaintiff
Shelly Ioane (“Plaintiff”). Doc. 219. Defendants Jean Nole, Brian Applegate, and Jeff Hodges
(collectively, “Defendants”) filed an opposition. Doc. 222. The motion was submitted on the
papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is

25
26
27
28

DENIED.
///
1

The factual background of this case is familiar to the Court and the litigants and will not be repeated here.

1

1
2
3
4

DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks to extend the expert and non-expert discovery deadlines set forth in the
Court’s scheduling order. Docs. 219; 174. Plaintiff alleges that she has certain mental and
physical disabilities which prevented her from complying with the Court’s scheduling order.

5
6

However, she does not specify what these disabilities are or how they interfered with her ability

7

to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s scheduling order. Plaintiff’s

8

vague reference to unidentified mental and physical disabilities does not constitute good cause to

9

modify the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (once a scheduling order has been set,

10
11

the “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”). Plaintiff’s
assertion that her pro se status militates in favor of obtaining a modification of the scheduling

12
13
14

order is also unavailing. A party’s pro se status and/or ignorance of the law do not constitute
good cause for medication. Gorton v. Bick, 2011 WL 345855, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011)

15

(“Plaintiff's ignorance of the law is not good cause for modification”), citing King v. Atiyeh, 814

16

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that

17

govern other litigants”). Finally, Plaintiff claims that an extension of the non-expert discovery

18

deadline is warranted because she seeks to conduct additional discovery based on Defendants’

19
responses to discovery requests she previously propounded. However, Plaintiff does not explain
20
21

with any specificity what additional discovery is needed and how it relates to Defendants’

22

responses to discovery requests she previously propounded. The Court cannot comb through the

23

voluminous discovery requests at issue to determine the validity of Plaintiff’s assertions.

24

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery deadlines is DENIED in its entirety.

25
26

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s request to extend expert discovery deadlines is moot in light of
the Court’s ruling on the Defendants’ motion to bifurcate trial or to reopen discovery. Docs. 284,

27
307. The Court has re-opened expert discovery and issued a new schedule for completion of
28
2

1

expert discovery. Doc. 307. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion seeks an extension of

2

expert discovery deadlines, Plaintiff’s motion is moot. In addition, Defendants have withdrawn

3
4

their motion for discovery sanctions, thereby potentially alleviating the risk of sanctions with
regard to Plaintiff’s late-served responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. Docs. 240, 307,

5
6

309.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 18, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3