Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 236

ORDER granting Defendants' Motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order Nunc Pro Tunc 230 ; granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Request to stay Discovery and all deadlines in the Court's Discovery and Scheduling Order 233 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/16/2017. Exhaustion Motion filing ddl: 12/8/2017; Amended Pleadings ddl: 12/16/2017; Discovery ddl: 4/8/2018; Dispositive Motion ddl: 6/8/2018.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MEDICAL STAFF AT CSATF, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Case No. 1:09-cv-00749-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER NUNC PRO
TUNC
(ECF No. 230)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO STAY DISCOVERY AND
ALL DEADLINES IN THE COURT’S
DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 233)
Exhaustion Motion Filing Deadline: December
8, 2017
Deadline to Amend Pleadings: December 16,
2017
Discovery Deadline: April 8, 2018
Dispositive Motion Deadline: June 8, 2018

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

23
24

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

25

Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint against Defendants Wu, McGuinness, Enenmoh, Jeffreys, and

26

Jimenez in their individual capacities for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in

27

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF Nos. 195, 199.)

28

///
1

1

I.

2

On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff lodged a sixth amended complaint, and on September

Background

3

25, 2017 filed a motion for leave to amend. (ECF Nos. 228, 231.) The Court denied the motion

4

on November 7, 2017. (ECF No. 235.)

5

During the pendency of Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants filed a motion to modify the

6

discovery and scheduling order, requesting a thirty-day extension of time to file an exhaustion

7

motion. (ECF No. 230.) Plaintiff did not file a response or opposition, and the deadline to file a

8

response has expired.

9

Defendants also filed a request to stay discovery and all deadlines in the Court’s discovery

10

and scheduling order pending resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 233.) Plaintiff

11

has not yet filed a response, but the Court finds a response unnecessary. Defendants’ motions are

12

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

13

II.

14

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and

Legal Standard

15

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily

16

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

17

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot

18

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was

19

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

20

III.

Discussion

21

In the instant motions, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint added

22

two new Defendants to this lawsuit, and an extension of thirty days is required to conduct

23

additional discovery and evaluate an exhaustion defense on behalf of Defendants Enenmoh and

24

Jimenez, and to file an exhaustion motion on behalf of Defendants Enenmoh, Jimenez, and Wu.

25

Defendants assert that good cause exists because these Defendants are all represented by the same

26

counsel, and a single motion for summary judgment can be filed, potentially narrowing the claims

27

and Defendants at issue or resolving the lawsuit in its entirety. (ECF No. 230.)

28

///
2

1

Defendants further argue that a stay of discovery and all outstanding deadlines pending

2

resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to amend is appropriate. Defendants assert that if the Court grants

3

Plaintiff’s motion to amend, any work completed in response to Plaintiff’s pending discovery

4

requests, defensive discovery, or drafting of motions will be rendered moot. If the motion is

5

denied, Defendants request forty-five days from the date of an order adopting findings and

6

recommendations to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and that the Court reset the

7

currently scheduled deadlines. (ECF No. 233.)

8
9

Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause for the brief
continuance of the deadlines in this action. Defendants have been diligent in completing

10

discovery and working on the dispositive motion, but the relevant deadline could not be met in

11

light of the addition of defendants to the fifth amended complaint and Plaintiff’s recently resolved

12

motion to amend. The brief continuance will not result in measurable prejudice to Plaintiff in a

13

matter that has been pending since 2009. As the Court has deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend, a

14

stay of discovery is no longer necessary, and shall be denied as moot.

15

IV.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

17
18

Conclusion and Order

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 230) is
GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC;

19

2. Defendants’ request to stay discovery and all deadlines in the Court’s discovery and

20

scheduling order (ECF No. 233) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as

21

discussed above;

22
23
24
25
26

3. Defendants’ responses to the discovery requests served with Plaintiff’s motion to amend
(ECF No. 231) shall be due on or before December 29, 2017;
4. The deadline for amending the pleadings remains the same. All stipulated amendments or
motions to amend shall be filed by December 16, 2017;
5. The deadline for filing motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

27

Procedure 56 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is extended to December 8,

28

2017;
3

1

6. The deadline for the completion of all discovery, including filing all motions to compel

2

discovery, is extended to April 8, 2018. Absent good cause, discovery motions will not

3

be considered if filed after the discovery deadline. Therefore, discovery requests and

4

deposition notices must be served sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to

5

permit time for a response and time to prepare and file a motion to compel.

6
7
8
9
10

7. The deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment
for failure to exhaust) is June 8, 2018.
8. A request for an extension of a deadline set in this order must be filed on or before the
expiration of the deadline in question and will only be granted on a showing of good
cause.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 16, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4