Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 120

ORDER GRANTING 118 Plaintiff's Motion and ORDER EXTENDING Application of Discovery/Scheduling Order of October 21, 2013, to Defendants Szalai and Alvarez signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/21/2014. 45-day deadline for plaintiff to respond to defendant Szalai and Alvarez' Discovery Requests. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LOUIS BRANCH,

11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION
(Doc. 118.)

Plaintiff,

12
13

1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC

vs.

ORDER EXTENDING APPLICATION OF
DISCOVERY/SCHEDULING ORDER OF
OCTOBER 21, 2013, TO DEFENDANTS
SZALAI AND ALVAREZ
(Doc. 109.)

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Deadline to Amend Pleadings− 04/21/2014
Discovery Cut−Off Date−
06/21/2014
Dispositive Motion Deadline− 09/02/2014

17
18

FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT SZALAI AND ALVAREZ’
DISCOVERY REQUESTS

19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Louis Branch ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

23

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

24

commencing this action on July 7, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third

25

Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, against defendants Umphenour,

26

Szalai, and Alvarez for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff’s safety in violation

27

of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation in violation of the

28

First Amendment. (Doc. 94.)
1

1

On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to issue a scheduling order

2

applicable to defendants Szalai and Alvarez. (Doc. 118.)

3

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

4

Plaintiff requests a discovery/scheduling order applicable to defendants Szalai and

5

Alvarez. Plaintiff notes that on October 16, 2013, defendant Umphenour filed an Answer to

6

Plaintiff’s complaint, and on October 21, 2013, the court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order

7

applicable to defendant Umphenour.

8

defendants Szalai and Alvarez filed an Answer to the complaint, but the court has not issued a

9

new discovery/scheduling order applicable to defendants Szalai and Alvarez. (Doc. 116.)

(Docs. 107, 109.)

Then, on December 3, 2013,

10

Plaintiff asserts that on November 14, 2013, defendants Szalai and Alvarez

11

inappropriately served discovery requests upon Plaintiff before filing their Answer. Plaintiff

12

seeks guidance by the court, before responding to the requests, as to the appropriateness of

13

defendants Szalai and Alvarez’ discovery requests at this stage of the proceedings.

14

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted, and the court shall extend the

15

application of the court=s October 21, 2013 Discovery/Scheduling order to defendants Szalai

16

and Alvarez. The parties are reminded that any requests for extensions of the deadlines set in

17

the order must be filed prior to the expiration of the deadlines in question.

18

III.

CONCLUSION

19

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

Plaintiff’s motion filed on February 18, 2014, is GRANTED;

21

2.

The court’s Discovery/Scheduling Order of October 21, 2013, is now applicable

22

to all of the defendants to this action: Szalai, Alvarez, and Umphenour;

23

3.

The deadline to amend pleadings is April 21, 2014;

24

4.

The deadline for completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to

25

compel, is June 21, 2014;

26

5.

27
28

The deadline for the parties to file pretrial dispositive motions is September 2,
2014; and

///
2

1

6.

Within forty-five days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall respond

2

to the discovery responses served upon Plaintiff by Defendants Szalai and

3

Alvarez on November 14, 2013.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

8
9
10

February 21, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

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