Sahibi v. Gonzales. et al.

Filing 98

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 90 Defendants' Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/19/2017. Dispositive Motions filed by 5/3/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

OUSSAMA SAHIBI,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
BORJAS GONZALES, et al.,

CASE No. 1:15-cv-01581-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF NO. 90)

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

19

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Cope, Gonzales, Lozano,

20

Smith, and Stan, and on a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendant

21

Crounse.

22

On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (ECF No. 83.) Defendants

23

filed oppositions. (ECF Nos. 85-89.) Plaintiff filed no reply. On March 3, 2017, the Court

24

ordered Defendants to submit specified materials for in camera review in relation to the

25

motion to compel. (ECF No. 94.) The motion remains pending.

26

Meanwhile, on February 23, 2017, Defendants Cope, Gonzales, Lozano and Stan

27

moved to modify the discovery and scheduling order to extend the dispositive motion

28

deadline from March 4, 2017 to April 3, 2017. (ECF No. 90.) Defendants Crounse and
1

1

Smith joined in the motion. (ECF No. 91.) Defendants state that they have been unable

2

to finalize their motion for summary judgment because they do not know which

3

documents, if any, they will be compelled to disclose in relation to Plaintiff’s motion to

4

compel, and whether they will be able to rely on these documents in their own motion for

5

summary judgment. Additionally, counsel requires additional time to prepare and finalize

6

Defendants’ declarations due to an intervening trial in another, unrelated matter.

7
8

The motion will be denied as moot with respect to Defendant Crounse. Crounse
timely filed his motion for summary judgment on March 2, 2017. (ECF No. 92.)

9

The motion will be granted with respect to the remaining Defendants. However, in

10

light of the March 3, 2017 order requiring Defendants to submit additional documents for

11

in camera review and the recent submission of said documents to the Court, the Court

12

finds it unlikely that the motion to compel will be resolved in advance of the April 3, 2017

13

deadline proposed by Defendants. Accordingly, the Court will extend the dispositive

14

motion deadline to and including May 3, 2017.

15

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order is

16
17

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as described herein; and
2. Defendant Cope, Gonzales, Lozano, Smith, and Stan’s deadline to file a

18
19

dispositive motion is extended up to and including May 3, 2017.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 19, 2017

/s/

23

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2