Henderson v. Lankford et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:12-cv-2317 KJN P
DR. R. LANKFORD, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On July 17, 2014, defendant
Lankford filed a document entitled “Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery
Requests.”1 On July 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a statement of no objection to defendant’s request
for extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. Good cause appearing,
defendant’s request is granted. Defendant is granted up to and including September 8, 2014, to
serve responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Buried within defendant’s request was a request that the court modify the discovery and
scheduling order to continue the deadline for filing pretrial motions to November 20, 2014. (ECF
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.
No. 46 at 2.) Plaintiff’s response did not address defendant’s request to continue the pretrial
motions deadline. (ECF No. 48.)
Requests to modify scheduling orders are not routinely addressed as requests for
extensions of time; rather, Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified
‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”
Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).
Defendant failed to address Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and failed
to address the fact that the court previously modified the scheduling order on June 26, 2014.
(ECF No. 39.) Therefore, defendant Lankford’s request to modify the scheduling order is denied
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s request for extension of time to respond to discovery (ECF No. 46) is
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
Dated: July 31, 2014
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?