Wheeler v. Alison et al

Filing 168

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Extend Discovery Deadline (Document 163 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/6/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

ERIC WHEELER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
ALISON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

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

1:12cv00861 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
DEADLINE
(Document 163)

18

Plaintiff Eric Wheeler (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

19

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). The action is currently in discovery

20

and Plaintiff’s October 20, 2014, motion to compel is pending.

21

On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he explains that he was

22

transferred to Mule Creek State Prison on October 23, 2014. As a result, he states that he will be
23
24
25
26

without his legal property for weeks and will not be able to meet the November 19, 2014,
discovery deadline.
Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R.

27

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

28

diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302
1

1

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

2

607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should

3

end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

4
5

Discovery in this action has been open since January 17, 2014. At this stage, the Court
will not extend the deadlines based solely on Plaintiff’s belief that his transfer will cause delays.

6
7
8
9

While the Court recognizes that transfers often cause delays in receiving property, the Court will
not extend deadlines absent a specific reason for doing so.
Plaintiff also requests additional time to “respond” to his motion to compel, but any reply

10

will not be due until seven (7) days after Defendants’ opposition. Plaintiff filed his motion on

11

October 20, 2014, and Defendants’ opposition is not due until on or about November 10, 2014.

12

If an extension is still necessary after Defendants file their opposition, Plaintiff may request one

13

at that time.

14

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

November 6, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2