United States District Court, E.D. California
DELTON L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
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
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).