Perkins v. Adams, et al.

Filing 34

AMENDED DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/11/2017 GRANTING plaintiff's 30 motion for court order and DENYING as moot defendants' 33 ex parte motion. The 3/30/2017 Discovery and Scheduling order is AMENDED to reflect that discovery is reopened and the discovery deadline is extended to 1/8/2018 and the dispositive motions deadline is extended to 4/9/2018. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY PERKINS,

12

No. 2:16-cv-01791 JAM CKD (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

A. ADAMS et al.,

15

AMENDED DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion for

19

a court order, ECF No. 30, and defendants’ ex parte motion to modify the discovery and

20

scheduling order, ECF No. 33. Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion and

21

plaintiff has replied. ECF Nos. 31, 32. For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant

22

plaintiff’s motion and deny defendants’ motion as moot.

23

This action is proceeding against defendants A. Adams and Y. Mansour based on

24

plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

25

Amendment. Defendants answered the complaint and on March 30, 2017, the Court issued a

26

discovery and scheduling order, setting the discovery deadline as July 3, 2017, and the dispositive

27

motion deadline as October 10, 2017. ECF No. 25. Defendants served their First Set of

28

Interrogatories on plaintiff on May 4, 2017. See ECF No. 32-1 at 1.
1

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order1

1

I.

2

In his motion for a court order, plaintiff requests not to answer defendants’ First Set of

3

Interrogatories “until after discovery has been completed or other later time deemed appropriate

4

by the Court” pursuant to Rule 33(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 30.

5

Plaintiff’s reply to defendants’ opposition clarifies the reasons for this request. By way of

6

declaration, plaintiff states that he “was unable to comply with defendants’ discovery requests to

7

any reasonable extent,… [because] he had not received the bulk of his medical records until right

8

when his responses were required, and much more of his medical records [until] after discovery

9

had actually closed.” ECF No. 32 at 2. Plaintiff also indicates that his health is deteriorating. Id.

10

In opposition to the motion, defendants assert that the motion is moot because plaintiff

11

served his discovery responses and the discovery period has now closed. See ECF No. 31.

12

Defendants also indicate that plaintiff never served any discovery requests and that there is no

13

pending motion to compel additional discovery responses from plaintiff. Id. To the extent that

14

plaintiff is seeking to modify the scheduling order governing this case, defendants contend that

15

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause. Id.
The court will construe plaintiff’s motion for a court order as a motion to modify the

16
17

discovery and scheduling order governing this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). So

18

construed, the motion will be granted based on good cause shown. Id. Here, plaintiff has been

19

diligently reviewing his medical records in an attempt to respond to defendants’ First Set of

20

Interrogatories. The discovery period in this case will be re-opened in order to permit plaintiff

21

one full and fair opportunity to propound discovery to defendants and to file any supplemental

22

responses to defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories after reviewing his complete medical records.
Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order

23

II.

24

Defense counsel filed a motion requesting to extend the dispositive motion deadline to

25

October 24, 2017 based on his absences from work due to a death in the family and illness. ECF

26
27
28

1

To the extent that plaintiff’s reply brief refers to an attached motion to photograph his injuries,
plaintiff is advised that no such motion was attached or filed with the court. See ECF No. 32 at 23.
2

1

No. 33. In light of the court’s ruling on plaintiff’s motion for a court order, defendants’ motion to

2

modify the discovery and scheduling order is moot. It will therefore be denied.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

5

2. The March 30, 2017 Discovery and Scheduling Order governing this case is hereby

Plaintiff’s motion for a court order (ECF No. 30) is granted;

6

amended to reflect that discovery is reopened and the discovery deadline is extended

7

to January 8, 2018 and the dispositive motion deadline is extended to April 9, 2018;

8

and,

9
10
11

3. Defendants’ ex parte motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order is denied as
moot.
Dated: October 11, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

12/perk1791.amend41dso.docx

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3