Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252-13/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

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

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael Mootry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendants Hedgpeth, Flores, Wegman, Lewis and Cabrera for violations of the Free Exercise Clause 

of the First Amendment. 

On January 22, 2014, the Court modified the Scheduling Order in this matter and extended the 

discovery deadline to March 9, 2014. The dispositive motion deadline remained March 31, 2014. 

On March 7, 2014, Defendants sought to modify the discovery and scheduling order and 

extend the dispositive motion deadline to May 30, 2014, in order to permit defense counsel additional 

time to complete a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 81-1, pp. 3, 5-6.) Plaintiff did not 

oppose the modification and concurrently requested that the Court reset the discovery deadline for 

MICHAEL MOOTRY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. G. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(ECF No. 84)

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 86 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

forty-five days after the dispositive motion deadline. He also requested permission to file motions to 

compel and motions for production. (ECF No. 82.) 

On March 20, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to extend the dispositive motion 

deadline. However, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline and file 

discovery motions. The Court informed Plaintiff that he was not precluded from requesting 

modification of the discovery and scheduling order to extend the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 83.)

On March 21, 2014, Defendants served supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery 

requests. (ECF No. 85, Declaration of Diana Chinn (“Chinn Dec.”) ¶ 3.)

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting modification of the discovery 

and scheduling order to extend the discovery deadline an additional thirty days. (ECF No. 84.) 

Defendants opposed the motion on April 23, 2014. (ECF No. 85.) Plaintiff did not reply and the 

motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). 

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “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.

B. Analysis

Plaintiff explains that he requires an extension of the discovery deadline for three main 

reasons. First, Plaintiff did not have sufficient time to review Defendants’ responses to production, 

which he received on March 6, 2014, before the discovery deadline of March 9, 2014. Plaintiff 

complains that Defendants did not send him the requested documents, but sent him either irrelevant 

material or no material. Second, for some reason, Plaintiff’s requests for production numbers 1-3 and 

16 were not mailed to defense counsel when Plaintiff sent his requests for production on January 20, 

2014. Plaintiff requires this information to prepare for trial. Third, and finally, Plaintiff does not have 

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 86 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 4
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

his legal documents and property, which are necessary both to prepare his case and to comply with the 

continuing production agreement reached with defense counsel. 

Defendants counter that Plaintiff has failed to establish the requisite good cause to modify the 

scheduling order and that Plaintiff has not demonstrated due diligence. Although Defendants 

acknowledge that they served Plaintiff with discovery requests on March 6, 2014, Defendants note that 

discovery opened on May 22, 2013, and that Plaintiff previously requested an extension of the 

discovery deadline. Defendants argue that Plaintiff could have propounded discovery requests nearly 

eleven months earlier, but did not serve any requests until January 20, 2014. Defendants also counter 

that Plaintiff’s request for an additional thirty-days to serve further discovery requests is futile because 

such requests must be served forty-five days before the discovery deadline and Defendants would not 

have sufficient time to respond.

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds good cause to modify the discovery

and scheduling order in this matter. After service of Defendants’ discovery responses on March 6, 

2014, Plaintiff attempted to extend the discovery deadline on March 17, 2014. The Court denied his 

request on March 20, 2014, but permitted him to file the instant motion to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order. Plaintiff promptly moved to modify the discovery order on April 3, 2014. There is 

no indication that Plaintiff delayed his discovery efforts after receiving Defendants’ responses to his 

requests for production. The Court recognizes that discovery in this matter opened on May 22, 2013. 

However, Plaintiff’s discovery requests were timely served before the discovery deadline and he has 

been diligent in pursuing discovery since that time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the 

discovery and scheduling order to extend the discovery deadline shall be granted. The Court finds it 

appropriate to extend the discovery deadline an additional sixty (60) days to allow Plaintiff to serve his 

requests for production of documents and to file any necessary motions to compel production. The 

dispositive motion deadline will be extended a corresponding sixty (60) days.

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling is 

GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The discovery deadline is extended sixty (60) days from the 

date of service of this order. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to a date sixty (60) days 

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 86 Filed 05/14/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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

after the discovery deadline. No further modifications of the discovery and scheduling order shall be 

permitted without good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 86 Filed 05/14/14 Page 4 of 4