York v. Stewart et al

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 35 Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/26/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 REGINALD RAY YORK, 10 11 12 Plaintiff, v. G. GARCIA, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF No. 35] 15 Plaintiff Reginald Ray York is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Garcia 17 for excessive force, against Defendant Neighbors for failure to protect, and against Defendants 18 Garcia and Neighbors for the failure to decontaminate. This matter was referred to the 19 undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling 21 order, filed on October 4, 2017. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff filed an opposition, (ECF No. 36), and 22 Defendants replied to the opposition, (ECF No. 38). The motion is deemed submitted. Local 23 Rule 230(l). 24 Defendants seek an extension of the discovery deadline from after the Court rules on 25 Defendants’ motion to compel, and an extension of the dispositive motion deadline from after 26 the Court rules on Defendant Stewart’s motion for summary judgment. Defendants assert that 27 they require time to review Plaintiff’s discovery response so that they can possibly prepare 28 another motion to compel, and so that they can prepare to take Plaintiff’s deposition. Further, if 1 Defendant Stewart is dismissed from this case as a result of the summary judgment motion, they 2 do not need to conduct further discovery on any claim related to him, and therefore waiting until 3 resolution of the motion to take Plaintiff’s deposition will prevent a waste of resources. Finally, 4 the discovery responses and Plaintiff’s deposition are both necessary to prepare a motion for 5 summary judgment. 6 By the Court’s order of March 19, 2018, Defendants’ motion to compel was granted, and 7 Plaintiff’s responses are due within thirty days of that order. (ECF No. 41). Further, by the 8 Court’s March 21, 2018 order, Defendant Stewart’s motion for summary judgment was ruled 9 upon, and he has been dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 43.) 10 The Court finds good cause to grant the requested extensions of time. Plaintiff’s objection 11 that Defendants must meet the standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), concerning 12 facts unavailable to a nonmovant attempting to respond to a motion for summary judgment, has 13 no merit. Defendants must meet the good cause standard under Rule 16(b)(4), and the Court 14 finds that Defendants have done so through their diligence in defending this action, and because 15 the modifications sought are reasonable under the circumstances. 16 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. 18 19 20 21 Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED; 2. The discovery deadline is extended until June 22, 2018 for the purpose of allowing Defendants to depose Plaintiff and to file a motion to compel, if necessary; and 3. The dispositive motion deadline is extended until July 23, 2018. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 26, 2018 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?