Sifuentes v. Ola, et al.
Filing
64
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery; ORDER GRANTING Final 63 Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/31/2022. Thirty-Day Deadline to File Opposition. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MIGUEL G. SIFUENTES,
11
1:16-cv-0241-DAD-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
DR. OLA, et al.,
14
ORDER GRANTING FINAL
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Defendants
15
(ECF No. 63.)
16
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
OPPOSITION
17
18
19
20
21
I.
BACKGROUND
22
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
23
U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on April
24
26, 2017 against defendant Dr. Ola (“Defendant”) for failure to provide adequate medical care
25
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 21.)
26
On October 15, 2019, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing
27
pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of April 15, 2020, and a
28
dispositive motions deadline of June 15, 2020. (ECF No. 43.) On February 19, 2021, after two
1
1
extensions of the deadlines, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order
2
and extended the discovery deadline to March 29, 2021, and the dispositive motions deadline to
3
May 28, 2021, for all parties. (ECF No. 53.) The deadlines have now expired.
4
On May 28, 2021, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 54.) On
5
November 12, 2021, Plaintiff requested a 60-day extension of time to file an opposition to the
6
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 59.) On November 16, 2021, the court granted
7
Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 61.)
8
On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed another request for extension of time to file his
9
opposition and also a request to reopen discovery to allow him to take Defendant Ola’s
10
deposition. (ECF No. 63.)
11
II.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
12
“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause,
13
extend the time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Good cause requires less than manifest injustice but a
14
focus on the diligence of the moving party and that party’s reasons for seeking modification are
15
the court’s focus in determining whether to permit an enlargement of time. Stoddart v. Express
16
Services, 2017 WL 3333994 *1-*2 (E.D. Ca. August 4, 2017) (other citations omitted). “The
17
District court possesses broad discretion to manage its own docket, which includes inherent
18
power to control disposition of causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,
19
for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81
20
L.Ed. 153 (1936).
21
Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for
22
summary judgment. To show his due diligence in filing his opposition, Plaintiff informs the
23
court of his failed efforts to acquire an attorney and submits evidence of his partially completed
24
opposition.
25
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed on May 28, 2021, more than eight
26
months ago, and Plaintiff was required to file a response to the motion within twenty-one days
27
after the motion was filed. On October 4, 2021, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to
28
file his opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days. (ECF No. 58.) On
2
1
November 12, 2021, Plaintiff requested sixty more days, which the court granted. (ECF Nos. 59,
2
61.) Now Plaintiff requests thirty more days.
3
Plaintiff’s delays do not show his diligence in meeting the court’s deadlines.
4
Nevertheless, as it appears that Plaintiff has prepared a significant part of his opposition the court
5
finds good cause to grant Plaintiff one final thirty-day extension of time to complete and file his
6
opposition. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this
7
case be dismissed.
8
II.
MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
9
Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and
10
with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily
11
considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
12
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot
13
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was
14
not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
15
Procedure, “If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot
16
present facts essential to justify its opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the court may
17
allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery.” F. R. Civ. P. 56(6).
18
Plaintiff contends that the reopening of discovery is warranted to take Defendant Dr.
19
Ola’s deposition because Dr. Ola “has not had to face cross examination or any questioning at
20
all for his actions,” and Plaintiff “had to answer question about HIS conduct in a deposition under
21
oath.” (ECF No. 63 at 4.)
22
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to reopen discovery at this stage of the
23
proceedings. Discovery in this case was opened on October 15, 2019 and closed on March 29,
24
2021, allowing Plaintiff more than fifteen months to conduct discovery, including the taking of
25
Defendant’s deposition. Plaintiff has not given any specified reason that more discovery is
26
needed to present facts essential to justify his opposition to the pending motion for summary
27
judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery shall be denied.
28
///
3
1
2
III.
CONCLUSION
1.
3
4
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, filed on January
21, 2022, is granted;
2.
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is granted one
5
final extension of time in which to file his opposition to Defendant Ola’s motion
6
for summary judgment;
7
3.
Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, filed on January 21, 2022, is denied; and
8
4.
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that
9
this case be dismissed.
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 31, 2022
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?