Griffin v. Johnson et al

Filing 81

ORDER Granting 80 Defendants' Motion to Modify the May 5, 2016 Order Lifting Stay of Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/06/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN,

Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY THE MAY 5,
2016 ORDER LIFTING STAY OF
DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

A. JOHNSON, et al.,
(ECF No. 80)
Defendants.

16

Responses to Pl.’s 1st Requests for
Production Due: July 19, 2016

17
18
19

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

20

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

21

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for excessive force and for deliberate

22

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

23

Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Valdez, Munoz, Sexton, Ross, Thor, Doe, Kul, Busch,

24

Bell, and Smith.

25

On March 11, 2016, Defendants filed a motion modify the Court’s May 5, 2016

26

order lifting the stay of discovery in this matter. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff has not

27

responded to this motion, but the Court finds no response necessary, and that Plaintiff

28

will not be prejudiced by the consideration of Defendants’ motion. Local Rule 230(l).
1

1

The Court’s May 5, 2016 order required Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s

2

requests for production within thirty (30) days of the date of service of that order, and

3

Defendants now seek an extension of that deadline until July 19, 2016. In support,

4

Defendants have submitted a declaration of counsel indicating that counsel has begun

5

working on the responses and requested documents to provide to Plaintiff. However,

6

counsel requires additional time to receive the documents, review them, including for

7

privilege and confidentiality, and fully-respond to Plaintiff’s forty requests.

8
9

The Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension under the
circumstances, where Defendant has shown diligence in responding to Plaintiff’s

10

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Further, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a brief

11

extension allowing Defendants the time necessary to provide complete responses to his

12

requests for production.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to modify the

14

Court’s May 5, 2016 order, (ECF No. 80), is GRANTED. Defendants’ responses to

15

Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production are due on or before July 19, 2016.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 6, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2