Harris v. German et al

Filing 80

ORDER GRANTING 72 Plaintiff's Request for Extension of Discovery for Limited Purpose Discussed in This Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/15/2019. Discovery Deadline (for limited purpose): 12/18/2019. Dispositive Motions filed by 2/18/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEVONTE HARRIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

1:15-cv-01462-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
DISCOVERY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE
DISCUSSED IN THIS ORDER
(ECF No. 72.)
ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS DEADLINE
New discovery deadline:
(for limited purpose)

18

12/18/2019

New dispositive motions deadline: 02/18/2020

19
20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Devonte Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

24

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the First

25

Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 14, 2016, against defendants (Correctional

26

Officers) (C/O) Humberto German, C/O Philip Holguin, and C/O R. Bunitzki (collectively,

27

“Defendants”), for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and, against

28

defendant C/O Philip Holguin for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 8.)
1

1

On April 24, 2019, the court issued a scheduling order reopening discovery and setting

2

new deadlines for the parties. (ECF No. 65.) The deadline for completion of discovery, including

3

the filing of motions to compel, was extended to August 30, 2019, and the deadline for filing

4

dispositive motions was extended to October 30, 2019. (Id.)

5

On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend discovery for sixty days from the

6

date of the court’s order granting the motion. (ECF No. 72.) Defendants have not filed an

7

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

8

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

9

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

11

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the

12

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due

13

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the

14

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling

15

order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not grant the motion

16

to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

17

Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery deadline until sixty days from the date of

18

this order. Plaintiff asserts that he is awaiting the court’s ruling on his motion to compel filed on

19

January 31, 2019, in which Plaintiff sought to inspect video evidence and compel production of

20

documents from an internal affairs investigation.1 Plaintiff also asserts that on or about August

21

5, 2019, he learned of a $50,000.00 settlement from another lawsuit. Plaintiff requests time to

22

conduct depositions in this case using the settlement funds. Plaintiff plans to obtain a court order

23

allowing and facilitating the depositions. Plaintiff contends that he will not have time to arrange

24

and conduct the depositions unless the current August 30, 2019 discovery deadline is extended.

25

The court finds good cause to modify the court’s scheduling order to extend discovery

26

for this limited purpose. Plaintiff has shown diligence in his efforts to arrange and conduct

27
28

1

On September 24, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff’s January 31, 2019 motion to compel. (ECF

No. 77.)
2

1

depositions using funds from the settlement of another lawsuit, but he was unable to do so by the

2

August 30, 2019 deadline. Defendants have not opposed Plaintiff’s motion. Therefore, good

3

cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of the discovery deadline shall be granted for

4

the limited purpose of Plaintiff arranging and conducting depositions in this case.

5

In light of this ruling, the court finds good cause to extend the deadline for filing

6

dispositive motions in this case for all parties until February 18, 2020.

7

III.

CONCLUSION

8

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

10
11

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the court’s April 24, 2019 Scheduling Order, is
GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of the discovery deadline until December

12

18, 2019, for the limited purpose of Plaintiff arranging and conducting

13

depositions in this case;

14

3.

15
16

The deadline for filing dispositive motions in this case for all parties is extended
from October 30, 2019 until February 18, 2020; and

4.

17

All other provisions of the court's April 24, 2019 Scheduling Order remain the
same.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 15, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3