Brown v. Sagireddy et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/18/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff's 94 Motion for Reconsideration be construed as a renewed Motion for Extension of Time and DENYING 94 Renewed Motion for Extension of Time without prejudice. (Henshaw, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:14-cv-0338 JAM AC P
PURUSHOTTAMA SAGIREDDY, et al.,
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his request for an
extension of time to complete discovery. ECF No. 94. Since the previous motion was dismissed
without prejudice (ECF No. 90), the court will construe the motion as a renewed motion for an
extension of time.
Discovery is set to close on August 18, 2017, and discovery requests were to be served no
later than June 19, 2017. ECF No. 87-1 at 5. Plaintiff’s previous request to modify the
scheduling order requested that the court “extend the timeline for completion of discovery to no
sooner than October 2017.” ECF No. 88 at 2. In denying plaintiff’s previous request for
extension, the court advised plaintiff of the information he would need to provide in any future
motions for extension. Specifically, he was directed to “identify what specific tasks he needs
additional time to complete, request a specific amount of time for the extension, and explain both
what he has been doing during the time he already had and why he needs the additional time
requested.” ECF No. 90. In his current motion, plaintiff identifies the discovery he seeks to
pursue and states that he requires additional time because he expects to be impeded in his efforts,
he “cannot reasonably be expected to move with the speed of trained legal professionals,” and he
is being subject to various civil rights violations that must be documented. ECF No. 94 at 4-5.
Plaintiff does not identify a specific amount of time for the extension or explain what he has been
doing since the discovery and scheduling order was issued on April 27, 2017. However, the court
will assume that he is still seeking an extension until sometime in October and that he has been
spending his time documenting the other alleged civil rights violations.
Discovery has been open for nearly three months, and there is no indication in plaintiff’s
current motion that he has taken any steps during that time toward obtaining the discovery he
seeks. ECF No. 94. Instead, he states that he anticipates obstruction of his efforts to obtain
discovery, which implies that he has yet to begin putting forth any efforts to obtain discovery, and
all evidence indicates that he has spent his time documenting the various alleged civil rights
violations instead of pursuing this case. ECF Nos. 88, 94. In denying the previous motion,
plaintiff was clearly advised that the court will not extend litigation deadlines simply because he
chooses to prioritize other matters (ECF No. 90) and he has failed to demonstrate that he has
made any efforts at pursuing discovery since being so advised. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
good cause for modifying the scheduling order and extending discovery and his motion will
therefore be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
construed as a renewed motion for extension of time (ECF No. 94) and is denied without
DATED: July 18, 2017
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?