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