Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Francis W. Davis v. T. Villagrana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 15, 2013

FRANCIS W. DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. VILLAGRANA, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE THIRTY DAYS, LIMITED TO CONDUCTING PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION (Doc. 47)

Plaintiff Francis W. Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 29, 2009. This action is proceeding against Defendant Villagrana for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Pursuant to the scheduling order, the deadline for the completion of discovery is March 16, 2013. On February 26, 2013, Defendant filed a motion seeking to modify the scheduling order. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Defendant intended to depose Plaintiff on March 8, 2013, but in light of Plaintiff's pending motions to amend to add a new claim, Defendant seeks a thirty-day extension of time to depose Plaintiff, to commence upon the ruling on the motions to amend.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on March 11, 2013, and the Court elects to rule on the motion without awaiting a reply because further briefing is unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to modify the scheduling order is noted, but he sets forth no arguments of merit. The potential addition of a new claim is material to Plaintiff's deposition, despite Plaintiff's argument to the contrary, and Plaintiff's contention that conducting his deposition is harassment because counsel can obtain the same information from her client is patently frivolous.

In a separate order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motions to amend, and allowing Defendant a brief thirty-day extension of time to depose Plaintiff constitutes a minor delay of no significance. Furthermore, there exists no prejudice to Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to modify the scheduling order, filed on February 26, 2013, is HEREBY GRANTED and the discovery deadline is extended thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, limited to conducting Plaintiff's deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130315

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.