Williams v. Daszko et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/04/17 ordering defendants respective counsel shall, within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a statement showing cause why plaintiffs motion should not be gra nted in full. Plaintiffs counsel may, within five (5) days after the filing date of each defendants statement, file and serve a reply. The May 10, 2017 hearing on plaintiffs motion shall remain scheduled until further order of this court; however, the briefing schedule set forth in Local Rule 230 shall not apply.(Plummer, M) Modified on 4/4/2017 (Plummer, M).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:14-cv-1248 KJM AC P
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JAROM A. DASZKO, et al.,
Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel, appointed mid-November 2016, has timely filed a motion to
extend the discovery deadline in this case, which expired on March 31, 2017. See ECF No. 70.
This is the first request for extended time by plaintiff’s counsel. Unable to obtain a stipulation to
extend discovery from counsel for either of the two defendants, plaintiff’s counsel filed the
pending motion and set the matter for hearing on May 10, 2017. In the interests of expediting this
matter, the court issues this order to show cause based on the following initial findings.
Plaintiff’s motion sets forth persuasive reasons, without apparent prejudice to defendants,
for extending discovery in this case for a period of ninety days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)
(schedule may be modified for good cause). The court notes that the duration of this action is not
unique for prisoner civil rights cases, particularly those involving claims of deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. Plaintiff’s motion also seeks an order of this court
directing defendants to provide any information subject to Initial Disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the contact information for two material medical
witnesses. It appears that defendants have been unwilling to provide the requested information
without an order of this court, on the ground that this action was commenced in pro se, which has
caused further delay. The appointment of pro bono counsel in prisoner civil rights cases is
intended to achieve, in cooperation with defense counsel, the disclosure of all relevant
information in ways that plaintiff is less capable of achieving on his own.
Accordingly, due to the potential merit of the pending motion on initial review, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s respective counsel shall, within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of
this order, file and serve a statement showing cause why plaintiff’s motion should not be granted
2. Plaintiff’s counsel may, within five (5) days after the filing date of each defendant’s
statement, file and serve a reply.
3. The May 10, 2017 hearing on plaintiff’s motion shall remain scheduled until further
order of this court; however, the briefing schedule set forth in Local Rule 230 shall not apply.
DATED: April 4, 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?