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)

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