Davis v. Villagrana et al

Filing 52

ORDER Granting Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Extending Discovery Deadline Thirty Days, Limited to Conducting Plaintiff's Deposition 47 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/15/13. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

FRANCIS W. DAVIS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01897-AWI-SKO PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTENDING
DISCOVERY DEADLINE THIRTY DAYS,
LIMITED TO CONDUCTING PLAINTIFF’S
DEPOSITION

v.
T. VILLAGRANA,

13

Defendant.

(Doc. 47)
/

14
15

Plaintiff Francis W. Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 29, 2009. This action is proceeding

17

against Defendant Villagrana for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment of the United States

18

Constitution.

19

Pursuant to the scheduling order, the deadline for the completion of discovery is March 16,

20

2013. On February 26, 2013, Defendant filed a motion seeking to modify the scheduling order. Fed.

21

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Defendant intended to depose Plaintiff on March 8, 2013, but in light of

22

Plaintiff’s pending motions to amend to add a new claim, Defendant seeks a thirty-day extension of

23

time to depose Plaintiff, to commence upon the ruling on the motions to amend.

24

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on March 11, 2013, and the Court elects to rule

25

on the motion without awaiting a reply because further briefing is unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).

26

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to modify the scheduling order is noted, but he sets forth

27

no arguments of merit. The potential addition of a new claim is material to Plaintiff’s deposition,

28

///
1

1

despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, and Plaintiff’s contention that conducting his deposition

2

is harassment because counsel can obtain the same information from her client is patently frivolous.

3

In a separate order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to amend, and allowing Defendant

4

a brief thirty-day extension of time to depose Plaintiff constitutes a minor delay of no significance.

5

Furthermore, there exists no prejudice to Plaintiff.

6

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order, filed on February 26, 2013,

7

is HEREBY GRANTED and the discovery deadline is extended thirty (30) days from the date of

8

service of this order, limited to conducting Plaintiff’s deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
ie14hj

March 15, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2