Harris v. Calzetta et al

Filing 66

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 61 Motion for Extension of Time; Denying 63 Motion to Compel Discovery, and Modifying Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/15/16. Discovery due by 4/22/2016. Dispositive Motions filed by 5/31/2016. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
HENRY EUGENE HARRIS,

CASE NO. 1: 13-cv-001088-MJS

10
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

DR. JUAN CALZETTA, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

ORDER
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME,
(2) DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY, AND

16

(3) MODIFYING DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER

17

(ECF NOS. 61, 63)

18
19
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on an Eighth
Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendant Calzetta.

(ECF No. 27.)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ February 22, 2016, motion for extension of time to
respond to interrogatories (ECF No. 61) and February 25, 2016, motion to compel
discovery (ECF No. 63).
I.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES
On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to

Defendant’s interrogatories. Plaintiff seeks this extension due to his transfer to an

1
2
3
4

outside facility for medical care, rendering him unable to access his legal materials.
Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 62.) In light of Defendant’s nonopposition and good cause appearing therefor, Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.
II.

5
6
7
8

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion to compel discovery.” (ECF No. 63.)
Although labeled a “motion,” examination of this filing reveals that it is in fact Plaintiff’s
discovery requests (requests for production of documents and interrogatories),
presumably yet to be propounded on Defendant.

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

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Plaintiff is hereby informed that document requests and interrogatories shall not
be filed with the Court unless and until there is a proceeding in which they are at issue”,
as they may be at trial or in connection with a dispute over the discovery or responses to
it. E.D. Local Rules 250.2(c), 250.3(c). As there is no indication that these requests have
been served on Defendant or that Defendant’s responses are inadequate in any way,
Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be denied without prejudice.
III.

REQUEST TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
Assuming that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time would be granted, Defendant

asks the Court to extend the current discovery and dispositive motion deadlines by up to
60 days so that he may conduct any additional discovery and/or allow Defendant
sufficient time to file a motion to compel, if necessary, based on Plaintiff’s responses.
The current deadlines are February 22, 2016, for conducting discovery (ECF No. 53) and
March 31, 2016, for filing dispositive motions (ECF No. 36).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows the Court to modify its scheduling
order for good cause. The “good cause” standard focuses primarily on the diligence of
the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d
604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and
offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice
to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion,

28
2

1
2
3
4
5

the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Id.
The Court has wide discretion to extend time, Jenkins v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins.
Co., 95 F.3d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1996), provided a party demonstrates some justification
for the issuance of the enlargement order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1); Ginett v. Fed. Express
Corp., 166 F.3d 1213, at *5 (6th Cir. 1998).

6
7
8
9
10
11

In light of Plaintiff’s transfer to an outside facility for medical care, the Court finds
that good cause exists to modify the scheduling order. The current deadlines will
therefore be extended.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s February 22, 2016, motion for extension of time (ECF No. 61) is

12

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve his responses to Defendant’s discovery

13
14

requests on or before April 1, 2016;
2. Plaintiff’s February 25, 2016, motion to compel (ECF No. 63) is DENIED

15
16

without prejudice; and
3. The discovery deadline is extended to April 22, 2016, and the deadline for

17

filing dispositive motions is extended to May 31, 2016.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

March 15, 2016

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3