Monclova-Chavez v. McEachern et al
Filing
100
ORDER granting 97 Motion to reopen discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/3/2011. Discovery Cut-off 12/9/11. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MAXIMILIAN MONCLOVA-CHAVEZ,
10
11
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00076-AWI-SMS PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
v.
(ECF No. 97, 98, 99)
12
ERIC McEACHERN, et al.,
Discovery Cut-Off Date - December 9, 2011
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Maximilian Monclova-Chavez (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner 08in this civil action
16
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388,
17
91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. This
18
action is proceeding on the complaint, filed January 15, 2008. This action is proceeding on the
19
complaint, filed January 15, 2008, against Defendants Miller, White, and Tincher for violations of
20
the Eighth Amendment.1 (ECF No. 1.) On April 24, 2009, Defendants Miller and White, appearing
21
pro per, filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF Nos. 19, 20.) A discovery and scheduling order
22
issued on April 30, 2009. (ECF No. 21.) On March 31, 2010, a pro hac vice application was filed
23
on behalf of Plaintiff, and an order granting the application was issued on April 6, 2010. (ECF Nos.
24
46, 48.) On September 27, 2010, Defendants Miller and White filed a motion for an extension of
25
discovery because they had requested reconsideration of the denial of representation and were
26
waiting notification of legal representation by the Federal Government Regional Counsel. (ECF
27
28
1
On December 8, 2010, default was entered against Defendant McEachern. (ECF Nos. 71, 72.)
1
1
Nos. 66, 68.) The motions were denied on October 1, 2010. (ECF No. 70.)
2
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on December 16, 2010. (ECF No. 74.) On March 21,
3
2011, Defendants Miller and White filed a substitution of attorney, which was granted on March 23,
4
2011. (ECF Nos. 80, 81, 83, 84.) On May 11, 2011, Defendants Miller and White filed a motion
5
to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 90. Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 24, 2011. (ECF No. 91.)
6
On May 31, 2011, an order issued granting Defendants motion to file an amended answer and
7
denying, without prejudice, Defendants’ motion to amend the schedule order. (ECF No. 94.) In the
8
order the parties were informed that the Court was inclined to modify the scheduling order to allow
9
limited discovery. The parties were ordered to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the discovery
10
issues.
11
On August 18, 2011, Defendants Miller and White filed a motion to reopen discovery. (ECF
12
No. 97.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 5, 2011. (ECF No. 98.) The parties have meet
13
and conferred and have been unable to come to an agreement on the discovery issues.
14
Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b),
15
and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.,
16
302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the District Court has wide latitude in
17
controlling discovery. In re State of Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2008); Burlington
18
Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U. S. District Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005). In this
19
instance Defendants Miller and White attempted to obtain representation by the Federal Government
20
Regional Counsel, which was denied, and have previously requested an extension of time to conduct
21
discovery prior to being represented by counsel. The Court finds good cause exists to amend the
22
discovery and scheduling order and reopen discovery.
23
Plaintiff argues that Defendants are attempting to propound interrogatories in excess of the
24
twenty five allowed by statute by dividing interrogatories into subparts. If this be the case, Plaintiff
25
need only respond to the first twenty five interrogatories propounded.
26
Plaintiff also requests that he be granted sixty days to respond to discovery requests.
27
Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order filed October 15, 2009, the parties are to respond to
28
written requests within forty-five days. If Plaintiff has difficulty in meeting this deadline he may file
2
1
a motion for an extension of time. Additionally, the parties are informed that since this action was
2
filed as a prisoner pro se complaint Local Rule 251 does not apply and, pursuant to Local Rule
3
231(l), all motions will be submitted without a hearing.
4
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1.
Defendants Miller and Whites’ motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED;
6
2.
The deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing motions to compel,
7
shall be December 9, 2011; and
8
3.
9
No further extensions of the discovery cut-off date will be granted without a showing
of good cause.
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
icido3
October 3, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?