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
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?