Valencia v. Kokor
Filing
85
ORDER Granting Defendants' 84 Motion to Modify Discovery Scheduling Order in Part, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/11/16. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANIEL G. VALENCIA,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
WINFRED KOKOR,
15
Case No. 1:13-cv-01391 LJO DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER IN PART
(Document 84)
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in
18
this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second
19
Amended Complaint, which states a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Kokor
20
and Sundaram.
21
22
Discovery opened as to Defendant Kokor on February 17, 2016. Defendant Sundaram’s
February 16, 2016, motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) is pending.
23
On May 9, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order,
24
seeking an extension of the May 17, 2016, deadline to file motions based on exhaustion. The Court
25
deems the motion suitable for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
26
DISCUSSION
27
Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ.
28
P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of
1
1
the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087
2
(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)).
3
“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply
4
additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for
5
seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was
6
not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302
7
F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
8
Here, Defendants seek an extension of the May 17, 2016, deadline for filing motions based
9
on exhaustion to September 14, 2016, the same day as the dispositive motion deadline. Defendant
10
Kokor served Plaintiff with exhaustion-based discovery, but Plaintiff has not yet provided complete
11
responses and would not stipulate to extend the exhaustion deadline. Defendant states that an
12
extension to September 14, 2016, is necessary to allow review of Plaintiff’s late responses, and to
13
schedule Plaintiff’s deposition, if necessary to discuss exhaustion issues.
14
The Court finds good cause to extend the deadline but will not extend it to September 14,
15
2016, given the Court’s preference to decide exhaustion issues as soon as possible. Albino v. Baca,
16
747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court will GRANT an extension to July 17, 2016, which
17
should provide sufficient time to review exhaustion discovery and file a motion, especially since
18
exhaustion-based discovery has already been served on Plaintiff and he is in the process of
19
responding.
20
The Court declines Defendants’ suggestion to impose evidentiary sanctions at this time.
21
From counsel’s declaration, it appears that Plaintiff has been attempting to obtain necessary
22
documentation, but has been unable to do so. Doering Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 11, 2016
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?