UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 9, 2013
RAYMOND REVIERE, PLAINTIFF,
M. PHILLIPS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AS UNTIMELY ECF No. 33
Plaintiff Raymond Reviere ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants S. Herrera, R. Matus, and M. Phillips for violation of the Eighth Amendment. On March 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. ECF No. 33. On April 19, 2013, Defendants filed their Opposition. ECF No. 34. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
Plaintiff moves to compel further response to his requests for production of documents. Pl.'s Mot. 1, ECF No. 33. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's motion is untimely, as the discovery cut-off date was February 20, 2013, and Plaintiff has failed to provide good cause for the late filing. Defs.' Opp'n 2, ECF No. 34.
The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial scheduling order "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause," 2 and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 3 (9th Cir. 2002). Although "the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 4 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the 5 moving party's reasons for seeking modification." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 6
Plaintiff has failed to present good cause for modification of the Court's Discovery and Scheduling Order. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is thus untimely and will not be considered.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, filed March 29, 2013, is denied as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.