(PC) Rodriguez v. Cate et al

Filing 51

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order 50 signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/9/2024. Dispositive Motions filed by 5/17/2024. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERICK EDDIE RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. CATE, et al.,

15

Case No.: 1:21-cv-00898-NODJ-SKO (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 50)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Erick Eddie Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

I.

20

On August 17, 2023, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 48.)

21

On January 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order, seeking an

22

INTRODUCTION

extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline. (Doc. 50.)

23

II.

DISCUSSION

24

Defendants seek an extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline, presently set for

25

March 18, 2024, to May 17, 2024. (Doc. 50 at 1.) The motion is supported by the declaration of

26

Deputy Attorney General Molly Christ. (Id. at 6-7.) Counsel states in November 2023 she began

27

efforts to identify and retain an expert concerning Plaintiff’s claims of arsenic in the water at

28

Kern Valley State Prison. (Id. at 6, ¶ 2.) Counsel identified two potential expert witnesses in early

1

December 2023; however, neither was able to provide the services requested. (Id. at 6, ¶ 3.)

2

Following Plaintiff’s deposition on December 5, 2023, defense counsel identified an available

3

expert witness and began the process of contracting for the expert’s services. (Id. at 6, ¶¶ 4-5.)
Counsel states that due to the number of hours anticipated for the expert’s record review

4
5

and preparation of a report, coupled with his other professional obligations, the expert will require

6

approximately sixty days to prepare a report. (Id. at 6, ¶ 6.) The expert’s report will be used to

7

support a motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 6, ¶ 7.) Counsel indicates an extension of the

8

dispositive motion filing deadline is necessary to accommodate the time required by the expert, as

9

well as defense counsel’s time to prepare the motion for summary judgment following receipt of

10

the expert’s report. (Id. at 6, ¶¶ 7-8.) Defense counsel states the motion is not brought for the

11

purpose of delay or harassment and will not significantly impact the progress of this matter or

12

unfairly prejudice Plaintiff because the case has not yet been set for trial and no other deadlines

13

will be affected. (Id. at 6, ¶ 8.) Defendants contend good cause exists to extend the dispositive

14

motion deadline to May 17, 2024. (Id. at 4-5.)

15

III.

16

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (Doc. 50) is

18

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

GRANTED; and

19

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is modified to extend the deadline for filing pre-

20

trial dispositive motions from March 18, 2024, to May 17, 2024.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

January 9, 2024

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2