Medina v. Dickinson et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/01/11 ordering plaintiff's request for this case to be referred for settlement 41 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery [44 ] is granted and discovery is re-opened for the limited purpose of permiting plaintiff to serve his prepared discovery requests pon defendants within 14 days of the filed date of this order. ( Discovery deadline is extended to 12/28/2011, Pretrial Dispositive Motions is extended to 4/11/2012). (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

RENE MEDINA,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. CIV S-10-0502 LKK GGH P

vs.
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

13

ORDER
/

14
15

By Order filed on October 14, 2011, plaintiff’s September 14, 2011, motion for

16

appointment of counsel was denied. By Order filed on October 18, 2011, plaintiff’s motion to

17

continue his deposition was denied. Plaintiff was informed that there was no basis for the court

18

to consider a continuance of the deposition. Plaintiff was reminded that in the August 25, 2011,

19

order granting plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw,1 the court had been clear that plaintiff

20

would have to continue in this action pro se and the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order,

21

filed on June 2, 2011, had long set the discovery cut-off date as October 14, 2011.
In the Order filed on October 18, 2011, the court also directed defendants to

22
23

provide a response to plaintiff’s motion, filed on October 12, 2011, for this case to be referred to

24

the “prisoner pro se settlement program.” In their subsequent response, filed on October 28,

25
1

26

Pro bono counsel had been appointed for plaintiff based on both plaintiff’s request and the
particular counsel’s specific request for such appointment. See Order, filed on August 25, 2011.
1

1

2011, defendants indicate that they do not find a settlement conference at this time to be useful

2

but would be willing to revisit the matter should the dispositive motion they anticipate filing be

3

denied. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice at this time.
Plaintiff has now filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline, which, of

4
5

course, he should have, at a minimum, filed prior to the expiration of that deadline. Plaintiff

6

contends that his counsel’s withdrawal was unexpected and that he had believed she would assist

7

him in conducting discovery. He indicates that he cooperated in his October 14, 2011, deposition

8

because counsel for defendants stated that she would move to dismiss should he fail to do so. He

9

states that he has now come to realize that new counsel will not be appointed and that he has

10

prepared a motion, by which the court infers that he means a request for production of

11

documents, that he maintains would be crucial for his trial. Plaintiff makes reference to

12

deposing, interrogating and cross-examining defendants; however, plaintiff does not indicate that

13

he has, for example, prepared interrogatories at this point.
Plaintiff’s belief that he would have counsel to help him prosecute his case turns

14
15

out to have been mistaken and the court believes that plaintiff had adequate time to conduct

16

discovery prior to the appointment of his counsel and obviously failed to do so, a failure that

17

should not, at this time, prejudice defendants. However, the withdrawal of plaintiff’s counsel

18

within a week or two of having been appointed, followed by his efforts to obtain substitute

19

counsel, has apparently impeded him somewhat and the court does not believe granting plaintiff

20

additional time to serve his request for production of documents upon defendants will unduly

21

prejudice them at this point, particularly if the court also extends the dispositive motion deadline.

22

Therefore, the court will continue the discovery deadline for plaintiff to serve his prepared

23

discovery requests upon defendants. However, his requests must be served by no later than

24

fourteen days after the filed date of this order. The discovery deadline will be continued, as will

25

the pretrial dispositive deadline.

26

\\\\
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s October 12, 2011 (docket # 41), request for this case to be referred

3

for settlement is denied without prejudice;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery, filed on

4
5

October 27, 2011 (docket # 44), is granted and discovery is re-opened for the limited purpose of

6

permitting plaintiff to serve his prepared discovery requests upon defendants within fourteen

7

days of the filed date of this order.

8

3. The discovery deadline is now extended until December 28, 2011;

9

4. The pretrial dispositive motion deadline is extended until April 11, 2012.

10

DATED: November 1, 2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12

GGH:009
medi0502.ord3

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3