Fields v. Masiel et al

Filing 63

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 57 Motion to Modify Schedule; ORDER DENYING Defendants' 55 Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/16/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
JOSE MASIEL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01699-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO MODIFY SCHEDULE (ECF No. 57)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES,
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, AND
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AS MOOT (ECF No. 55)

18
19

I.

20

Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

Background

21

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

22

Defendants Masiel, Aguirre, and Hernandez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

23

Currently pending before the Court are (1) Defendants’ motion to compel responses to

24

interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents filed on September

25

16, 2013; and (2) Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule filed on September 17, 2013. (ECF Nos.

26

55, 57.) Plaintiff did not file any opposition and the motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule

27

230(l).

28
1

1

I.

2

On January 23, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that

Motion to Modify Schedule

3

order, discovery closed on September 23, 2013, and the deadline to file dispositive motions ended on

4

December 2, 2013. (ECF No. 44.)

5

On September 16, 2013, prior to expiration of the discovery deadline, Defendants filed a

6

motion to compel written responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. (ECF No. 55.) Shortly

7

thereafter, on September 17, 2013, Defendants filed the instant request to modify the scheduling order

8

to (1) vacate the discovery deadline pending resolution of the pending motion to compel; and (2)

9

vacate and reset, if necessary, the dispositive motion deadline. Defendants additionally requested

10

that—if the Court declined to grant Defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion—discovery be

11

reopened for the limited purpose of permitting Defendants to take Plaintiff’s deposition in preparation

12

for trial. (ECF No. 57-1.) After the filing of the instant motions, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’

13

written discovery requests. As a result, Defendants filed a motion to compel further responses to

14

discovery on December 2, 2013. (ECF No. 60.) On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a related

15

discovery motion. (ECF No. 61.)

16

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

17

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

18

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

19

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met

20

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry

21

should end. Id.

22

Here, the Court finds good cause to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order for the

23

purpose of extending the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Based on the pending discovery

24

motions, the discovery and dispositive motions cannot be met despite Defendants’ apparent diligence.

25

At this time, the discovery deadline shall be extended to February 28, 2014, solely to allow for

26

resolution of the pending discovery motions. The Court shall address the pending motions in due

27

course. The corresponding dispositive motion deadline shall be extended to April 28, 2014.

28
2

1

Defendants also have requested that discovery remain open to allow for the deposition of

2

Plaintiff in the event Defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion is denied. Defendants explain that

3

Plaintiff’s deposition is not necessary for their dispositive motion, but likely would be necessary if this

4

matter proceeds to trial. The Court declines Defendants’ invitation to leave discovery open for this

5

purpose. However, if Defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion is denied, Defendants shall not be

6

precluded from moving to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s

7

deposition.

8

II.

9
10

Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions and
Requests for Production of Documents

On July 26, 2013, Defendants Aguirre, Masiel, and Jung-Hernandez served their first set of

11

requests for production of documents and requests for admissions; and Defendants Aguirre and Masiel

12

served their first sets of interrogatories. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to submit timely discovery

13

responses, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide responses on September 16, 2013.

14

(ECF No. 55.) Before the Court ruled on the motion to compel, however, Plaintiff served responses to

15

Defendants’ discovery requests on November 5, 2013. Thereafter, on December 2, 2013, Defendants

16

moved for an order compelling further responses to their discovery requests. (ECF No. 60.) As

17

Plaintiff filed a written response, albeit untimely, to Defendants’ discovery requests, the motion to

18

compel is no longer necessary and shall be denied as moot.

19

III.

20

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

21

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule is GRANTED:

22

2. The discovery motion deadline is extended to February 28, 2014, solely to allow for

23

Conclusion and Order

resolution of the pending discovery motions;

24

3. The dispositive motion deadline shall be extended to April 28, 2014;

25

4. Defendants shall not be precluded from moving to reopen discovery for the limited

26

purpose of deposing Plaintiff in the event that their anticipated dispositive motion is

27

denied; and

28
3

1

5. Defendants’ motion to compel responses to interrogatories, requests for admissions, and
requests for production of documents, filed on September 16, 2013, is DENIED as moot.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

January 16, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4