Hunt v. Reyes et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 58 Motion for leave to file additional interrogatories signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/02/11. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MICHAEL A. HUNT,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. CIV S-08-0181 MCE CKD P

M. REYES, et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 1983. He claims that defendants retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment

18

rights. Discovery requests were due August 31, 2011. (Dkt. No. 48.) Motions to compel

19

discovery were due October 30, 2011. (Id.) Pending is plaintiff’s November 16, 2011 motion for

20

leave to file additional interrogatories. (Dkt. No. 58.)

21

As this request comes after the discovery cut-off date, the court construes it as a

22

request to modify the schedule under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). See Hellman v.

23

Vojkufka, 2011 WL 677877 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011) (same). A schedule may be

24

modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the

25

moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due diligence.

26

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, plaintiff has
1

1

not shown – nor attempted to show – that he could not have served the questions he now wishes

2

to ask of defendants prior to the discovery cut-off if he had acted diligently. Accordingly, the

3

court denies plaintiff’s request to propound additional interrogatories.

4
5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 16, 2011 motion for leave
to file additional interrogatories (Dkt. No. 58) is denied.

6

Dated: December 2, 2011

7

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11

2
hunt0181.ord2

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2