Sariaslan v. Rackley et al.

Filing 47

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/16/19 GRANTING 42 Motion modify scheduling order; DENYING 45 motion to compel; and DENYING 46 Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with the Courts Motion. The parties may conduct discovery until March 18, 2019. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before June 17, 2019. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAMIN SARIASLAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2492-MCE-EFB P

v.

ORDER

RONALD RACKLEY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.

17
18

§ 1983, has filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. ECF No. 42.

19

Defendants oppose the motion (ECF No. 44), and have filed a motion to compel discovery1 (ECF

20

No. 45). Plaintiff has not yet responded to defendants’ motion but has filed a “Motion for

21

Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s Motion” (ECF No. 46), stating that on December

22

4, 2018, he was transferred to the California Institute for Men and on December 13, 2018, he was

23

transferred to the California Correctional Institute. There is no “Court Motion,” but plaintiff’s

24

request is construed as one for an extension of time to file a response to defendants’ motion to

25

compel.

26

/////

27
28

1

Defendant’s motion argues that plaintiff failed to provide any response at all to
defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production.

1

In his motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, plaintiff states that he timely

2

served two sets of interrogatories and two sets of requests for production on defendant Rackley.

3

ECF No. 42 at 2. He states that he also timely served one set of interrogatories and one set of

4

requests for production on defendant Polasik. Id. He asks that the December 21, 2018 deadline

5

for completion of discovery (see ECF No. 40) be extended by 60 days so that he may serve a

6

second set of interrogatories and request for production on defendant Polasik. Id. Given that

7

plaintiff was transferred at least two times in the weeks preceding the close of discovery (see ECF

8

No. 46), has limited access to legal resources as a prisoner (see ECF No. 42), and appears to have

9

been diligent in serving discovery requests, the court finds good cause to grant plaintiff’s motion

10

for additional time.2 See Fed R. Civ. P. 16(b). Accordingly, the deadline for completion of

11

discovery will be extended to March 18, 2019. In light of this extension, defendants’ motion to

12

compel is denied as moot. ECF No. 45. To the extent plaintiff has been properly served with

13

discovery requests, he shall timely respond to them in accordance with this new deadline.

14

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

15

1.

16
17

Plaintiff’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 42) is
GRANTED;

2. The parties may conduct discovery until March 18, 2019. Any motions necessary to

18

compel discovery shall be filed by that date.

19

3. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before June 17, 2019.

20

4. Defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 45) is DENIED as moot;

21

5. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s Motion” (ECF

22
23

No. 46) is DENIED as moot.
DATED: January 16, 2019.

24
25
26
27
28

2

Consequently, the deadline for filing dispositive motions will also be extended.
2