Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01631/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01631-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

URIEL GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

POWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01631-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 54)

Plaintiff Uriel Garcia is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Powell, Hurtado, and 

Ugwueze1for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violations of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 11, 2023. (Doc. 48.) 

Relevant here, the deadline for the completion of discovery was May 11, 2024, and the deadline 

for the filing of dispositive motions is July 22, 2024. (Id.) 

On July 9, 2024, Defendants filed a request to modify the scheduling order to complete 

Plaintiff’s deposition and to extend the time to file a dispositive motion. (Doc. 54.) Defendants’ 

request is supported by the Declaration of Jean M. Trenbeath and Exhibits A and B. (Id. at 4-23.) 

1 Defendant Swafford was dismissed from this action on September 29, 2023. (Doc. 51.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01631-KES-CDB Document 55 Filed 07/10/24 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

The Court deems a response by Plaintiff unnecessary.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 

good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 

the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Here, Defendants’ request indicates defense counsel commenced taking Plaintiff’s 

deposition on May 3, 2024. (See Doc. 54 at 4, ¶ 3.) During the deposition, Plaintiff informed 

defense counsel that he did not wish to proceed with his Eighth Amendment claims against 

Defendants. (Id. & Ex. A.) The parties discussed Plaintiff’s willingness to sign a document 

voluntarily dismissing his claims. (Id.) As a result of this circumstance, defense counsel elected 

not to proceed further with the deposition, including as to her questions regarding Plaintiff’s 

claim against Defendant Hurtado, and the deposition was halted. (Id., at ¶ 4.) On May 17, 2024, 

defense counsel forwarded correspondence to Plaintiff, including a stipulation to voluntary 

dismissal with prejudice. (Id., at ¶ 5 & Ex. B.) On June 14, 2024, when counsel had not received 

the signed stipulation from Plaintiff, she arranged for a telephone call with Plaintiff. (Id., at ¶ 6.)

During their July 21, 2024, conversation, Plaintiff advised counsel he had received the stipulation 

but had been confined to the correctional treatment center due to illness and needed more time to 

consider the stipulation. (Id., at ¶ 7.) Defense counsel agreed with Plaintiff’s request and advised 

him she would call again on July 5, 2024. (Id.) On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff indicated to defense 

counsel he was still considering whether to sign the stipulation. (Id., at ¶ 8.) Defense counsel 

advised Plaintiff she would need to file a motion requesting discovery be reopened to finish 

taking Plaintiff’s deposition and to extend the deadline for filing a dispositive motion. (Id.) 

Defense counsel asked Plaintiff whether he would stipulate to not oppose such a motion, but 

Plaintiff was reluctant to answer and stated he did not understand the process and did not want to 

give up any rights. (Id.) Defense counsel states it appears Plaintiff wishes to continue litigating 

Case 1:19-cv-01631-KES-CDB Document 55 Filed 07/10/24 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

this action against the Defendants. (Id., at ¶ 9.) Counsel asks the Court to reopen discovery for the 

limited purpose of allowing her to complete Plaintiff’s deposition, specifically concerning his 

claim against Defendant Hurtado, by August 5, 2024. (Id.) Further, counsel seeks an extension of 

the deadline for filing a merits-based summary judgment motion, up to and including October 18, 

2024. (Id., at ¶ 10.) The additional time will allow defense counsel to prepare such a motion 

considering her obligations in other actions, including a settlement conference, an upcoming trial, 

and another dispositive motion deadline. (Id.) Counsel declares this is Defendants’ first request to 

modify the scheduling order and that it is not made for the purpose of harassment, undue delay, or 

for any other improper reason. (Id., at ¶¶ 11-12.) 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 54) is GRANTED; 

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED as follows:

a. Discovery is reopened for the limited purpose of completing Plaintiff’s 

deposition. The deadline to complete limited discovery is August 5, 2024; and

b. The deadline for filing a dispositive motion is extended from July 22, 2024, to 

October 18, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01631-KES-CDB Document 55 Filed 07/10/24 Page 3 of 3