Henderson v. Lankford et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/31/14 ORDERING that Defendants request for extension of time to respond to discovery 46 is granted; Defendant shall serve responses to plaintiffs discovery requests on or before September 8, 2014; and Defendants request to modify the scheduling order 46 is denied without prejudice. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY HENDERSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:12-cv-2317 KJN P v. ORDER DR. R. LANKFORD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On July 17, 2014, defendant 18 Lankford filed a document entitled “Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery 19 Requests.”1 On July 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a statement of no objection to defendant’s request 20 for extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Good cause appearing, 21 defendant’s request is granted. Defendant is granted up to and including September 8, 2014, to 22 serve responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Buried within defendant’s request was a request that the court modify the discovery and 23 24 scheduling order to continue the deadline for filing pretrial motions to November 20, 2014. (ECF 25 1 26 27 28 Counsel for defendant is advised that Local Rule 137(b) requires the separate filing of a proposed order in .pdf format, as well as submission by email of a separate proposed order in Word format to the appropriate judges’ email box listed on the Court’s website. “Both the submission of the .pdf version and the submission via email to the email box of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge must be accomplished.” L.R. 137(b). Here, counsel for defendant did not file a proposed order on the court docket, and did not email a proposed order in Word format. 1 1 No. 46 at 2.) Plaintiff’s response did not address defendant’s request to continue the pretrial 2 motions deadline. (ECF No. 48.) 3 Requests to modify scheduling orders are not routinely addressed as requests for 4 extensions of time; rather, Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 5 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 6 ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 7 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 8 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). 9 Defendant failed to address Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and failed 10 to address the fact that the court previously modified the scheduling order on June 26, 2014. 11 (ECF No. 39.) Therefore, defendant Lankford’s request to modify the scheduling order is denied 12 without prejudice. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Defendant’s request for extension of time to respond to discovery (ECF No. 46) is 15 16 17 18 granted; 2. Defendant shall serve responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests on or before September 8, 2014; and 3. Defendant’s request to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 46) is denied without 19 prejudice. 20 Dated: July 31, 2014 21 22 /hend2317.eot 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?