McNeal v. Evert, et al

Filing 287

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 6/27/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff's discovery motions 273 , 274 are DENIED; since Plaintiff has not shown that the discovery he seeks should be authorized under the manifest injustice standard, his motions are DENIED. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VERNON WAYNE MCNEAL, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 No. 2:05-cv-00441-GEB-EFB v. ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY MOTIONS F. LECKIE; A ERVIN; R. CHATHAM, substituted party for C. Chatham, deceased; and D. VAN LEER, Defendants. 13 Plaintiff 14 filed two identical discovery motions on 15 October 5, 2016 (ECF Nos. 273 and 274), which he characterizes as 16 motions 17 records. 18 submitted 19 motions appear to seek production of the referenced records for 20 such 21 completion date in this case. for in The to review camera review referenced chambers after the for of each defendant’s personnel records have in review, and camera expiration of the personnel not been Plaintiff’s prescribed discovery 22 However, Plaintiff has not shown under the manifest 23 injustice standard that he should be authorized to conduct the 24 referenced 25 pretrial order was filed and after the prescribed date by which 26 discovery was to have completed has expired, a modification to 27 that discovery completion date is authorized “only to prevent 28 manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also Hunt v. discovery. Since the 1 motions were filed after a 1 County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (stating the 2 following four factors should be considered when deciding whether 3 to modify a prescribed completion deadline under the manifest 4 injustice standard: “(1) the degree of prejudice or surprise to 5 the defendants if the order is modified; (2) the ability of the 6 defendants 7 modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the case; 8 and (4) any degree of willfulness or bad faith on the part of the 9 party seeking the modification”) (citations omitted). to cure any prejudice; (3) the impact of the 10 Since Plaintiff has not shown that the discovery he 11 seeks should be authorized under the manifest injustice standard, 12 his motions are denied. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 27, 2017 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?