(PC) Case v. Fisher et al

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 11/25/2024. (Gonzales, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARRETT CASE,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

v.
RAYTHEL FISHER JR. et al.,
Defendants.

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

Case No.: 1:19-CV-1739-KES-BAM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION
(Docs. 78, 83)

18

Plaintiff Garrett Case, proceeding pro se in this civil action, moved to compel the production of

19

“Records from CDCR” on August 12, 2024. Doc. 78. In the motion, he requests “equal access to my

20

electronic file/records/history of 602, 602-HC, 1842 ADA grievance forms and attachments.” Id. at 2.

21

On September 23, 2024, plaintiff moved for an additional extension of time to file an opposition to

22

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. 83.

23

Discovery in this matter, including expert discovery, has been closed since October 20, 2021.

24

See Doc. 36. Courts may reopen discovery for good cause, and when determining if there is good

25

cause, courts should consider if the non-moving party would be prejudiced by reopening discovery

26

and the general procedural posture of the case. See City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d

27

1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017). This case has been pending since 2019, concerns actions taken by

28
1

1

defendants in 2016–17, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been pending since

2

June 15, 2022.

3

At a hearing on May 15, 2024, plaintiff was granted a 45-day extension of time to file an

4

opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Doc. 69. The Court granted plaintiff a further

5

extension of time on June 25, 2024. Doc. 75. On August 6, 2024, the Court again extended the

6

deadline to file an opposition, this time to September 7, 2024, and warned that “[a]ny further request

7

for an extension of time will be disfavored.” Doc. 77. Despite the warning, plaintiff requested

8

additional time to file an opposition on August 12, 2024. See Docs. 78, 79, 80.

9

On September 5, 2024, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff filed a

10

211-page statement of genuine disputes with exhibits. Doc. 81. Thereafter the Court granted plaintiff

11

a final 16-day extension, until September 23, 2024, to file any additional legal memoranda in

12

opposition. Doc. 82. The Court further informed the parties that the motion for summary judgement

13

would be taken under submission on October 7, 2024. Id. Plaintiff did not file any supplemental

14

briefing in opposition to the summary judgment motion; instead, plaintiff filed a further motion for

15

extension of time. Doc. 83. Defendants timely filed a reply on October 7, 2024 addressing plaintiff’s

16

September 5, 2024 opposition filing. Doc. 84.

17

In his latest motion for extension of time, plaintiff states that he wishes to depose a

18

neurosurgeon who performed operations on him from 2019 onwards, which is after the period at issue

19

in this case. Doc. 83 at 2. Plaintiff also complains that CDCR actions have limited his ability to

20

properly oppose the motion for summary judgment, but plaintiff has already filed a 211-page

21

document in opposition to the summary judgment motion. See id.

22

Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for reopening discovery at this late stage in the

23

proceedings or for a further extension of time to file an additional opposition to the motion for

24

summary judgment. Defendants would also be prejudiced by a reopening of discovery at this late date

25

and by further delay of the resolution of their summary judgment motion. Prejudice against the

26

defendants is presumed because “delay inherently increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will

27

fade and evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002).

28
2

1

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, Doc. 78, is DENIED.

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion for further extension of time to file an opposition, Doc. 83, is DENIED.

4

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Doc. 41, is under submission and the Court
will issue a ruling.

5
6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 25, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3