Brooks v. Lee et al

Filing 97

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 07/10/2023 GRANTING Defendants' 96 Motion for Extension of Time and GRANTING-IN-PART the 89 Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Compel. Defendants may file a Motion to Compel and the Dispositive Motion deadline is EXTENDED to 9/29/2023. Plaintiff's 90 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. Plaintiff must provide responses to Defendants' discovery request within 30 days of this order's entry. (Spichka, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODNEY BROOKS,

12
13
14

Case No. 2:18-cv-00374-WBS-JDP (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

J. LEE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

There are three motions pending involving plaintiff’s discovery responses and the

18

dispositive motion deadline. First, plaintiff has filed his fourth motion to modify the scheduling

19

order. ECF No. 90. Second, defendants have filed a motion seeking leave to file a motion to

20

compel and request that the dispositive motion deadline be vacated.1 ECF No. 89. Finally,

21

defendants have moved to extend the dispositive motion deadline. ECF No. 96. In light of

22

plaintiff’s repeated failure to provide defendants with discovery responses, I will grant defendants

23

leave to file a motion to compel and will extend the dispositive motion deadline.

24

On July 15, 2022, I issued a discovery and scheduling order that set the deadline for

25

completing discovery, including filing discovery-related motions, as December 16, 2022, and the

26

dispositive motion deadline as March 17, 2023. ECF No. 79. Since that order, plaintiff has

27
28

1

I will not vacate the dispositive motion deadline but will extend it in hopes of
encouraging this case to progress.
1

1

sought to modify those deadlines four times, including most recently on May 26. ECF Nos. 80,

2

83, 86, & 90. The latest extension granted the parties until May 8 to complete discovery. ECF

3

No. 88. Despite the multiple extensions, defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to respond to

4

discovery propounded in November 2022. ECF No. 89.

5

Plaintiff’s repeated failure to respond to discovery request is troubling, especially given

6

the fast-approaching dispositive motion deadline. Each party has an obligation in litigation to

7

respond to properly propounded discovery requests. And if a party chooses to ignore that

8

obligation, the court has authority to impose certain sanctions—including dismissal. Fed. R. Civ.

9

P. 37(d)(1)(A), (d)(3). While I am cognizant of challenges that prisoner-plaintiffs face, plaintiff’s

10

pro se status does not excuse intentional noncompliance with discovery rules and court orders.

11

See Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (affirming sanction of

12

dismissal, holding that “[a] pro se litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a lawyer,

13

particularly here with the fulfilling of simple requirements of discovery”); Warren v. Guelker, 29

14

F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that district court could not decline to impose any

15

sanction for violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 simply because plaintiff was proceeding pro se).

16

Plaintiff has provided numerous reasons why he has needed additional time to complete

17

discovery: COVID-19 restrictions, moving between cell units, medical issues, his job, and college

18

classes. See ECF Nos. 80, 83, 86, & 90. Although plaintiff has alleged facing multiple

19

challenges, both the court and defendants—who did not oppose plaintiff’s prior three motions to

20

modify the scheduling order, ECF Nos. 81, 84, & 87—have been liberal with extensions of time.

21

Notwithstanding numerous extensions, plaintiff has failed to complete written discovery

22

responses for over six months.

23

Plaintiff is cautioned that if he does not submit responses to defendants’ outstanding

24

discovery within thirty days of this order’s entry, I may consider a sanction of dismissal

25

appropriate. See Gordon v. Cnty. of Alameda, 2007 WL 1750207, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 15,

26

2007) (“[P]ro se plaintiffs must abide by the rules of discovery, and when they fail to do so in bad

27

faith dismissal is warranted.”).

28

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
2

1. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion to compel is, ECF No. 89, is granted in

1
2

part.

3

a. Defendants may file a motion to compel; and

4

b. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to September 29, 2023.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 90, is granted. He must provide

5
6

responses to defendants’ discovery request within thirty days of this order’s entry.
3. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 96, is granted. The dispositive

7
8

motion deadline is extended to September 29, 2023.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
Dated:

July 10, 2023

12

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3