Gil v. Yates et al

Filing 100

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Discovery 95 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/26/13. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRANCISCO GIL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. WOODEND,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09cv00917 DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION REGARDING DISCOVERY
(Document 95)

Plaintiff Francisco Gil (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action, filed on May 26, 2009. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third Amended

19

Complaint against Defendant J. Woodend for violation of due process in connection with a Rules

20

Violation Report hearing. Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary

21

Judgment are currently pending.

22
23
24
25

On August 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court issue subpoenas to
approximately 22 non-parties, including judges at both the state and federal level.
DISCUSSION
Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26

16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

27

party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th

28

Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If
1

1

the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify

2

should not be granted.” Id.

3

Here, discovery closed on November 14, 2012, after the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to

4

extend the deadline from September 30, 2012. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion requesting additional

5

discovery is subject to the “good cause” requirement of Rule 16(b).

6

Plaintiff does not present any explanation as to why he seeks discovery at this late date, nor

7

does he acknowledge the fact that the discovery deadline has passed and Findings and

8

Recommendations are pending. Plaintiff states that Defendant has “violated the discovery process”

9

and he now requests numerous subpoenas duces tecum. However, the remedy to discovery violations

10
11

would have been timely motions to compel.
Accordingly, based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 26, 2013

15

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

16

L. Beck

3b142a

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2