Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Taylor v. Patel

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 6, 2016

DELTON L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
HARISHKUMAR PATEL, et al., Defendants.

          Discovery Deadline: September 1, 2016

          Dispositive Motion Deadline: November 8, 2016

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AS TO DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES (ECF NOS. 23 AND 32) MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER:

          MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Delton L. Taylor, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 10, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on February 23, 2015, against Defendants Harishkumar Patel and Richard Le for medical indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 9.)

         Pending before the Court is Defendants' May 24, 2016 motion for a ninety-day extension of the discovery deadline, to September 1, 2016, and a ninety-day extension of the pretrial motion deadline, to November 8, 2016. (ECF No. 32.) As of July 6, 2016, Plaintiff had not filed an opposition. The matter is submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint, on which this action proceeds, on February 23, 2015. (ECF No. 9.) On May 13, 2015, the Court issued a screening order finding cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Patel and Le and directing Plaintiff to submit service documents for these two Defendants. (ECF No. 10.) On September 28, 2015, Defendants filed an answer. (ECF No. 22.) On September 30, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling order. (ECF No. 23.) The order set a discovery deadline of May 30, 2016 and a dispositive motion deadline of August 8, 2016.

         On October 1, 2015, Defendants propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff. Each Defendant also propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff. (ECF No. 32-1, "Decl. Jennifer Marquez ¶ 2.") Plaintiff provided responses to each Defendant's special interrogatories and produced documents called for in Defendants' Request for Production of Documents, but to date has failed to provide the written response to each request for production required by FRCP 34(b)(2)(B). Id. at ¶ 4.

         On or about December 10, 2015, Defendants each propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 7. To date, Plaintiff has not responded. Id. On January 19, 2016, and February 12, 2016, Defendants sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter regarding his failure to provide written responses to Defendants' production requests and Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9. Plaintiff has failed to respond or provide the requested responses. Id. at ¶ 11.

         Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery on May 11, 2016. (ECF No. 31.) Defendants contend they cannot be prepared to take Plaintiff's deposition until written discovery issues are resolved. Decl. Jennifer Marquez ¶ 12.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Court may modify its scheduling order upon a showing of good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that despite exercising due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence, the inquiry should end and the Court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern Cal. Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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