Brown v. Beagley et al

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING Modification of Scheduling Order (Doc. 50 ); ORDER DISREGARDING Request to Compel; ORDER DENYING Motion to Reconsider, Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/8/2012. (Arellano, S.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01460 JLT
BENNIE RAY BROWN

13
14
15
16

ORDER DENYING MODIFICATION OF
Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER

v.

ORDER DISREGARDING REQUEST TO
COMPEL

OFFICER JESS BEAGLEY, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER

Defendants.

17
(Doc. 50).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action against two individuals.
(Doc. 1). On April 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting subpoenas “pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 45(c)(1).” The Court denied Plaintiff’s request because non-expert discovery had already
closed and Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with any facts to show that despite his diligent
effort to obtain the requested discovery before the March 30, 2012 deadline, he was unable to do
so. (Doc. 48). Although the motion presently before this Court is titled as a Motion to Modify
Scheduling Order, Plaintiff raises several other issues, including Defendants’ responses to

28
1

1

discovery requests, Plaintiff’s need for a hearing, and a request for a de novo review of the

2

Magistrate’s prior rulings. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

3

to modify the scheduling order, DISREGARDS the portions of the motion relating to

4

Defendants’ responses to discovery requests and need for hearing on such issues, and DENIES

5

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

6

1. Good Cause to Modify Scheduling Order

7

As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, scheduling orders are “not a frivolous piece of

8

paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v.

9

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) quoting (Gestetner Corp. v. Case

10

Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985). Good cause must be shown for modification

11

of the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Ninth Circuit explained:
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party
seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it
cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.
Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no
reason for a grant of relief. Although the existence of a degree of prejudice to the
party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion,
the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for modification. If
that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff lists the names of six physicians he is currently seeing and 26 different medications

17

that he currently takes (presumably) to demonstrate that his medical conditions prevented him

18

from conducting discovery before the March 30, 2012 deadline. (Doc. 50 at 3). Plaintiff

19

provides several dates in 2011 and 2012 in which he was dealing with his medical issues: May

20

11, 2011 – May 14, 2011 (hospitalization), January 23, 2012 – January 30, 2012 (cardiac issues),

21

and March 22, 2012 (EGD). (Id. at 4). Plaintiff further alleges that from August 17, 2011 to

22

February 17, 2012, the medication he took created mental and physical limitations. (Id. at 5).

23

While the Court does not dispute that Plaintiff has had to deal with several medical issues during

24

this case, he has not demonstrated that the medical issues have prevented him from diligently

25

pursuing discovery. For example, the Scheduling Order in this case did not issue until October 19,

26

2011; thus, any date prior to this would not have affected Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery.

27

Second, Plaintiff claims that his medication limited his mental and physical abilities from August

28

2011 to February 2012; however, during that same period of time, Plaintiff was able to file a 20
2

1

page Objection to Defendant’s Responses (Doc. 27), an 18 page Motion for Reconsideration

2

(Doc. 30), and two Scheduling Conference reports (Docs. 32 and 35). Thus, Plaintiff’s physical

3

and mental condition did not prevent him from requesting a modified scheduling order before the

4

close of discovery.

5

Additionally, Plaintiff claims that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order because

6

he has acted “diligently.” (Doc. 9 at 1 and 5). Plaintiff explains that he “diligently” pursued

7

Defendants’ reasons for their March 15, 2010 “invasion of his privacy” and claims that he has

8

asked Defendants three times to produce a transcription of ”the text call” and a glass smoking

9

pipe “before the summons issued.” (Id.) From Plaintiff’s description, it does not appear that

10

Plaintiff ever sent Defendant a valid discovery request for such items, as Defendants had not yet

11

been served with any complaint. Other than Plaintiff’s request for the items some time “before

12

the summons issued” in May 2011 (Doc. 16), Plaintiff doesn’t explain another action he took to

13

obtain the discovery. As a result, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any facts to show

14

that despite his diligent effort to obtain the requested discovery before the March 30, 2102, he

15

was unable to do so.

16

2.

17

Responses to Discovery Requests and Request for Hearing
Plaintiff included in this Motion a request to compel Defendants to respond to

18

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. (Doc. 50 at 8). Because the Court has already set a hearing date for

19

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, the Court DISREGARDS this request. The Court will address the

20

issue at the May 24, 2012 hearing. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s renewed Request

21

for Subpoenas is DENIED. (Doc. 40.)
Request to Reconsider Magistrate Judge’s Rulings

22

3.

23

Plaintiff’s Motion includes a request for a de novo review of the “Magistrate’s findings

24

recommendations and orders inter alia.” (Doc. 50 at 8). It is not clear to which rulings or “other

25

things” Plaintiff refers, as the Court has issued several orders in this case. The Court’s most

26

recent orders, issued April 18, 2012, relate to Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas, settlement

27

agreements, and Plaintiff’s discovery dispute with Defendants. (Doc. 47, 48, and 49). For the

28

reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is not only vague, it appears
3

1

frivolous, and demonstrates no error by the Court. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s

2

motion for reconsideration.

3

ORDER

4

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

5

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order is DENIED;

6

2.

Plaintiff’s motion or a hearing on the discovery dispute is DISREGARDED;

7

3.

Plaintiff’s renewed request for subpoenas to be issued is DENIED;

8

4.

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of previous orders is DENIED.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

12

May 8, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

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