(PC) Hill v. Newsome et al

Filing 131

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 01/06/25 GRANTING 128 Motion for Correction or Clarification; the current date for the close of discovery is 02/07/25. Plaintiff's 129 130 motions to compel are DENIED. (Deputy Clerk AJB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATHAN HILL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:19-cv-1680 DJC AC P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer in a civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for correction or

19

clarification of the discovery and scheduling order and to compel discovery. ECF Nos. 128-30.

20

Plaintiff’s motion for correction or clarification of the scheduling order will be granted.

21

The correct date for the close of discovery is February 7, 2025, not February 7, 2024.

22

Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery will be denied. Plaintiff seeks to have defendants

23

provide written responses to what appear to be interrogatories and requests for productions. See

24

ECF Nos. 129, 130. However, plaintiff has not shown that he has served defendants with these

25

interrogatory and production requests and that defendants have failed to respond. See Fed. R.

26

Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv) (a motion to compel may be made if “a party fails to answer an

27

interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond

28

that inspection will be permitted . . . as requested under Rule 34.”).
1

1

Plaintiff is reminded that per the scheduling order:

2

7

1. Discovery requests shall be served by the party seeking the discovery on all
parties to the action.[] [If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf
of any defendant, then plaintiff, must serve documents on that attorney and not on
the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b).] Discovery requests shall not be filed with
the court except when required by Local Rules 250.1, 250.2, 250.3 and 250.4.
2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five days after the
request is served.
3. The parties are cautioned that filing of discovery requests or responses, except as
required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not
limited to, a recommendation that the action be dismissed or the answer stricken.

8

ECF No. 125 at 5 (emphasis added). Additionally, plaintiff had until December 9, 2024, to serve

9

discovery requests; has until February 7, 2025, to complete discovery and submit motions to

10

compel; and has until May 2, 2025, to file pretrial motions, including motions for summary

11

judgment. See ECF No. 125 at 6.

3
4
5
6

12

To the extent plaintiff erroneously served the court rather than defendants with his

13

discovery requests, plaintiff should promptly seek a brief modification to the scheduling order to

14

allow him to properly serve his requests on defendants. To seek such modification, plaintiff must

15

establish good cause and excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) (“When an act may or

16

must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . on

17

motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”);

18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the

19

judge’s consent.”). “Excusable neglect ‘encompasses situations in which the failure to comply

20

with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence,’ and includes ‘omissions caused by

21

carelessness.’” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citation

22

and alterations omitted) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., Ltd., 507 U.S.

23

380, 388, 394 (1993)). To determine whether there is excusable neglect, the court considers: “(1)

24

the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact

25

on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.”

26

Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer,

27

507 U.S. at 395). This assessment is an equitable one that is intended to take into consideration

28

all relevant circumstances, and not just the four factors listed above. Briones v. Riviera Hotel &
2

1

Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997).

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. Plaintiff’s motion for correction or clarification (ECF No. 128) is granted. The current

4
5
6

date for the close of discovery in this matter is February 7, 2025.
2. Plaintiff’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 129, 130) are denied.
DATED: January 6, 2025

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3