Paris v. Singh
Filing
27
ORDER Granting Defendant's 25 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/12/2016. Dispositive Motions filed by 8/9/2016.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PAUL ERIC PARIS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
IKWINDER SINGH,
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00391-MJS (PC)
ORDER
GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING
ORDER
(ECF No. 25)
Defendant.
16
17
AUGUST 9, 2016 DISPOSITIVE MOTION
DEADLINE
18
19
20
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
21
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on
22
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Singh for inadequate medical care
23
in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
24
On July 30, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting June
25
9, 2016 as the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 22.) On June 8, 2016, Defendant
26
filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the dispositive motion deadline to
27
August 9, 2016. (ECF No. 25.) Defense counsel explains that he recently was
28
1
1
reassigned several additional matters due to the death of one deputy attorney general
2
and the retirement of another. One of these matters was set to begin trial July 11, 2016.
3
These reassignments prevented counsel from timely filing a motion for summary
4
judgment in this action.
5
Plaintiff opposes the motion. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff states that defense counsel
6
informed Plaintiff at the close of Plaintiff’s deposition that Plaintiff would receive a
7
“response report” of the deposition and that the parties thereafter would “join discovery
8
plans.” Plaintiff received no further follow up from defense counsel, the discovery
9
deadline expired, and the deadline for “joining discovery” also passed. He states that he
10
seeks to introduce competent evidence and therefore asks that Defendant’s motion be
11
denied or that he be permitted to conduct discovery to prepare an opposition.
12
Defendant has presented good cause for an extension of time. Plaintiff’s
13
opposition presents no grounds for denying an extension of time. The motion will be
14
granted.
15
The Court is unable to discern from Plaintiff’s filing the nature of the parties’
16
discovery dispute. To the extent Plaintiff seeks an extension of the discovery deadline,
17
he may file a motion seeking same. Such a motion must be supported by a showing of
18
good cause and that Plaintiff has pursued discovery with diligence. Fed. R. Civ. P.
19
16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). If
20
and when Defendant files a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may move to have
21
the Court defer consideration of such motion until Plaintiff has had an opportunity to
22
pursue discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). However, Plaintiff bears the burden of
23
specifically identifying the relevant information he seeks, demonstrating that the
24
evidence sought actually exists, and explaining how or why it would prevent summary
25
judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009)
26
(citation omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v.
27
City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006). Such a
28
request is premature at this stage of the proceedings, given that Defendant has yet to
2
1
file a motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff therefore cannot know what evidence
2
may be necessary to defeat it.
3
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and
4
scheduling order is HEREBY GRANTED. (ECF No. 25.) The deadline for filing
5
dispositive motions is extended to and including August 9, 2016.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 12, 2016
/s/
9
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?