Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01779/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01779-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM

Plaintiff,

v.

STROME, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-DLB PC

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEUDLING ORDER

(Document 74)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action.

Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order and subsequent modifications, the current 

dates for Defendants Clark, Dougherty, Faldon, Gill, Hayward, Herrera, Kaiser, McCabe, Molina, 

Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Rouch, Sao, and Torres1are as follows: the deadline to amend is May 9, 

2016, the discovery deadline is June 8, 2016, and dispositive motions are due by August 8, 2016.

On April 8, 2016, these Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment based on 

exhaustion. The motion is pending.

On April 27, 2016, Defendants Clark, Dougherty, Faldon, Gill, Hayward, Herrera, Kaiser, 

McCabe, Molina, Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Rouch, Sao, and Torres filed a motion to vacate the dates in 

the Discovery and Scheduling Order and stay discovery until resolution of the pending motion to 

 

1

 Defendant Strome is represented by separate counsel and has slightly different deadlines. 

Case 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

dismiss. The Court deems the matters suitable for decision without further briefing. Local Rule 

230(l).

DISCUSSION

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of 

the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply 

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for 

seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 

F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Here, Defendants Clark, Dougherty, Faldon, Gill, Hayward, Herrera, Kaiser, McCabe, 

Molina, Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Rouch, Sao, and Torres request that the Court vacate the dates in the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order and stay discovery until it is clear which claims survive the 

exhaustion challenge. Defendants state that if the partial motion for summary judgment is granted, it 

will greatly narrow the claims remaining in this action. It appears that the parties have been 

conducting discovery in this matter, which would further limit the discovery necessary after the 

ruling on summary judgment.

Where there are claims that will remain after an exhaustion challenge, the Court does not 

always grant a motion to stay discovery. In this action, however, approximately eleven Defendants 

would be dismissed if the claims against them are found to be unexhausted, and a stay would avoid a 

large amount of potentially unnecessary discovery. Moreover, the parties have already engaged in 

some degree of discovery, and a stay at this time will not severely prejudice Plaintiff.2

///

///

 

2

 In the November 10, 2015, Discovery and Scheduling Order, the Court explained that if the parties believe that 

discovery related to exhaustion is necessary, they may request such discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) within thirty days 

of the date of service of any motion for summary judgment related to exhaustion. 

Case 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Court VACATES the dates in the 

January 29, 2016, order modifying the Discovery and Scheduling Order.3 Once the Court rules on 

the pending motion for summary judgment, it will issue an amended scheduling order allowing 

additional time for discovery related to the remaining claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

 Defendant Strome did not join in this motion, and the dates is the April 11, 2016, order remain applicable at this time.

Case 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA Document 75 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 3