Spence v. Beard, et al.

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/23/19 PARTIALLY GRANTING 57 Motion for Reconsideration. The discovery deadline is extended to 4/19/19. The pretrial motions deadline is extended to 7/19/19; in all other respects the 10/11/18 scheduling order remains in effect. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERALD SPENCE,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1828 TLN KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING
ORDER

G. KAUR,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983. On January 18, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the January 7, 2019

19

order granting defendant’s request for extension of time. Plaintiff objects, inter alia, that

20

defendant’s request was granted before plaintiff could file an opposition to the request, and argues

21

that granting defendant’s request demonstrates bias because plaintiff’s prior unopposed request

22

for a 45-day extension of time to complete discovery was only partially granted, allowing 30 days

23

where 45 days were requested, and warning that the court was not inclined to further extend such

24

deadlines.

25

Plaintiff appears to be under the misapprehension that defendant was granted an extension

26

of time to respond to discovery beyond the discovery deadline. Plaintiff is mistaken. On

27

November 20, 2018, plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline was partially granted,

28

and the discovery deadline was extended from January 25, 2019, to February 25, 2019. On

1

January 7, 2019, defendant’s request to extend time to respond to certain discovery requests was

2

granted, nunc pro tunc, to January 27, 2019, based on defendant’s excusable neglect. The

3

January 27, 2019 deadline falls within the extended discovery period because the discovery

4

deadline was extended, at plaintiff’s request, to February 25, 2019. Defendant did not seek to

5

extend the discovery deadline. Because defendant was seeking a first extension of time to

6

respond to discovery requests, he was not required to show good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

7

Had plaintiff sought a first extension of time to respond to a discovery request, he would have

8

been extended the same courtesy. Plaintiff’s objections to the granting of the extension of time

9

are overruled.

10

However, upon reconsideration, and in light of the lengthy extension of time granted to

11

defendant to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests, as well as plaintiff’s claims contained in his

12

prior requests to extend the discovery deadline (ECF Nos. 50 & 53), the court finds good cause to

13

further extend the discovery deadline, and grants plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery

14

deadline by 53 days. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992).

15

The pretrial motions deadline is also extended. In all other respects, the provisions of the October

16

11, 2018 scheduling order remain in effect. Both parties are informed that no further extensions

17

of the discovery deadline will be granted.

18

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 57) is partially granted;

20

2. The discovery deadline is extended from February 25, 2019, to April 19, 2019; and

21

3. The pretrial motions deadline is extended to July 19, 2019; in all other respects the

22

October 11, 2018 scheduling order remains in effect.

23

Dated: January 23, 2019

24
25
26
/spen1828.850

27
28
2