Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 37

ORDER Granting 36 Ex Parte Application for Extension of Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/29/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4

PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney
ALYSON A. BERG
Assistant United States Attorney
2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401
Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6

Attorneys for the United States

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

OFFICER BAKER; WARDEN PAUL
COPENHAVER; OFFICER BORJA; ASS.
WARDEN SNYDER,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-001540 DAD-MJS
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING
ORDER DATES; ORDER

Defendant Christopher Baker requests to modify the scheduling order to allow for additional

19

time to conduct focused discovery and take the deposition of Plaintiff Shannon Williams (“Plaintiff”), a

20

prisoner proceeding pro se regarding conduct while imprisoned at United States Penitentiary Atwater,

21

based on the pending motion for summary adjudication that may eliminate one of the two causes of

22

action. Defendant acted diligently in filing his dispositive motion and good cause exists for

23

approximately a ninety-day continuance of the current scheduling dates to allow additional time for a

24

ruling on the motion.

25
26
27
28

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO CONTINUE THE SCHEDULING ORDER DATES
BASED ON THE PENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTION
Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause and due diligence. Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To

29
EX PART E APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DATES; ORDER

1

1

establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that

2

even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court

3

may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id.
This lawsuit is a Bivens1 action filed by Williams, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, against

4
5

former BOP Correctional Officer Christopher Baker, alleging a claim of excessive force and a separate

6

claim for retaliation arising from an incident on October 13, 2014, at United States Penitent iary Atwater.

7

ECF No. 12. On September 21, 2017, Defendant filed a potentially dispositive motion for summary

8

adjudication on the claim for retaliation because Williams never filed an administrative grievance with

9

the BOP alleging any purported retaliatory statements by Officer Baker. ECF No. 30. The briefing on

10

this motion was completed on November 20, 2017. ECF Nos. 31, 34.

11

Meanwhile, after Defendant answered the Complaint, a Scheduling Order was issued setting the

12

dates of September 28, 2017 for an exhaustion motion, February 28, 2018 as the discovery deadline and

13

May 7, 2018 for the dispositive motion filing deadline. ECF No. 27. In furtherance of the Order,

14

Defendant filed his exhaustion motion before the deadline, and is now awaiting a ruling that could

15

eliminate one of the two causes of action. ECF No. 30. Should the lawsuit be reduced to one cause of

16

action, this will narrow the written discovery as well as the areas to cover in Williams’ deposition.

17

Accordingly, the parties resources are conserved by extending the current deadlines approximately

18

ninety-days to May 7, 2018, for completing discovery and the dispositive motion filing deadline to

19

August 14, 2018, to allow for a ruling on the motion that can potentially remove one of the causes of

20

action.

21

Significantly, although the deadline for filing dispositive motions is May 7, 2018, with a

22

discovery deadline of February 28, 2018, Defendant is acting diligently in seeking the extension almost

23

two months before the discovery deadline to provide adequate notice to the Court and Williams.2 No

24

prejudice, moreover, will be suffered by this extension of approximate ly ninety-days for the discovery

25
26

1

27

2

28

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

In an abundance of caution, Defendant will notice the deposition of Williams for February 2018 in
compliance with the Court’s earlier order.

29
EX PART E APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DATES; ORDER

2

1

and dispositive motion deadlines as the operative pleading was only recognized as of May 5, 2017, and

2

no trial date has been set in this action.3 ECF No. 23. If judgment is entered for Defendant on the

3

retaliation claim, this will obviate the need for the written discovery and questions at the deposition of

4

Williams on this claim. See United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (court's

5

inherent power to control its docket).4 Accordingly, for good cause showing, including the saving of

6

time and resources in allowing additional time for a ruling on the pending motion for summary

7

adjudication, Defendant requests the discovery and dispositive motion filing deadlines be extended

8

approximately ninety-days.
Respectfully submitted,

9
10

Dated: December 22, 2017

PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney

11
12

By:

13
14

/s/Alyson A. Berg
ALYSON A. BERG
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant

15

ORDER

16

For good cause showing, the discovery deadline is now continued to May 7, 2018, and the

17

dispositive motion filing deadline to August 14, 2018.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

December 29, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Williams is serving a 480-month aggregate sentence for one count of conspiracy to distribute and
possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of21 U.S.C. § 846 and one count of money
laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). He is eligible for release for good time conduct on
April 16, 2044.
4

In an abundance of caution, Defendant will notice the deposition of Plaintiff for February 2018 in
compliance with the Court’s earlier order. .

29
EX PART E APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DATES; ORDER

3