Cooper v. Brown et al

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 30 Request for Modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order; ORDER EXTENDING Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Dispositive Motions for All Parties; ORDER for Defendant Chokatos to Respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/11/18. New Discovery Deadline: 09/ 14/18; New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 11/14/18. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON LEROY COOPER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 1:15-cv-00908-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 30.) EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL PARTIES 16 New Discovery Deadline: 09/ 14/18 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 11/14/18 17 18 ORDER FOR DEFENDANT CHOKATOS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 19 20 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff Jason Leroy Cooper (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 24 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds 25 with Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed on July 7, 2017, against defendant Dr. 26 Chakatos, based on Plaintiff’s medical claim under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 19.) 27 On October 12, 2017, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 28 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of March 12, 2018, for the parties to 1 1 complete discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, and a deadline of May 14, 2018, 2 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (ECF No. 25.) 3 On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 4 Order to extend the deadlines. (ECF No. 30.) Defendant has not filed an opposition, and the 5 time for opposition has passed. Local Rule 230(l). 6 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 7 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 9 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 10 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 11 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 12 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 13 scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not 14 grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 15 (9th Cir. 2002). 16 Plaintiff asserts and offers evidence that he did not receive the court’s Discovery and 17 Scheduling Order after it was served by the court on October 12, 2017, until defense counsel 18 sent him a copy on or about January 18, 2018. As a result of the delay in receiving the order, 19 Plaintiff asserts that he was unable to serve his discovery requests during the time period 20 required by the court’s order.1 21 Defendant discovery requests consisting of interrogatories, requests for admissions, and 22 requests for production of documents, and on February 28, 2018, Defendant mailed responses 23 objecting to all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests because they had not been timely served. 24 Plaintiff asserts that on January 31, 2018, he served on The court finds that Plaintiff has shown that even with the exercise of due diligence, he 25 cannot meet the deadlines established in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. 26 /// 27 28 1 The court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order requires the parties to serve discovery requests at least 60 calendar days before the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 25 at 2:6.) 2 1 Therefore, the court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines 2 for all parties to this action. 3 Good cause appearing, the discovery deadline shall be extended to September 14, 2018, 4 for all parties to this action, and the dispositive motions deadline shall be extended to 5 November 14, 2018, for all parties to this action. Any further requests for extension of 6 deadlines should be filed before the expiration of the existing deadlines. 7 III. CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. 10 11 Plaintiff’s motion to modify the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed on March 19, 2018, is GRANTED; 2. The deadline for the completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to 12 compel, is extended from March 12, 2018, to September 14, 2018, for all 13 parties to this action; 14 3. 15 16 The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from May 14, 2018, to November 14, 2018, for all parties to this action; and 4. 17 All other provisions of the court’s October 12, 2017, Discovery and Scheduling Order remain the same. 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 11, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?