Rapalo v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 39

ORDER Granting Defendants' 38 Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/17/2014. Dispositive Motions filed by 1/16/2015.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER RAPALO,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
S. LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01695-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 38)

17
18

Plaintiff Walter Rapalo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

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

20

Lopez, Schaffer and Manasrah for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the

21

Eighth Amendment.

22

On February 19, 2014, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that

23

order, the deadline to complete discovery is October 19, 2014, and the deadline to file dispositive

24

motions is December 29, 2014. (ECF No. 27.)

25

On September 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 36.)

26

Defendants opposed the motion on October 7, 2014. (ECF No. 37.) The motion is pending.

27
28

On October 16, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion requesting an extension of the
deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. Defendants seek to extend the discovery deadline to
1

1

November 14, 2014, to complete Plaintiff’s rescheduled deposition. Defendants explain that counsel

2

noticed the deposition of Plaintiff at Valley State Prison for October 16, 2014. It appeared that

3

Plaintiff would require a Spanish language interpreter for the deposition. On the date of the

4

deposition, defense counsel learned that the provided interpreter was an employee of the California

5

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the same entity that employs defendants. As a result,

6

counsel cancelled the deposition in order to secure a certified and neutral interpreter for a rescheduled

7

deposition of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 38; Phillips Dec. ¶¶ 4, 6.) In addition to the extension of the

8

discovery deadline to complete the deposition, Defendants also request a corresponding extension of

9

the dispositive motion deadline to January 16, 2015. The Court finds a response unnecessary and the

10

motion is deemed submitted.1 Local Rule 230(l).
Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order is

11
12

HEREBY GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The discovery deadline is extended to November 14,

13

2014, and the dispositive motion deadline is extended to January 16, 2015.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

/s/ Barbara

October 17, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by an inability to respond as the requested extension will permit resolution of his pending
motion to compel and additional time to complete a dispositive motion, if any.

2