Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01221/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01221-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. CHANDRA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22cv1221 TLN CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On August 2, 2024, plaintiff filed his first 

motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order. As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is 

granted. 

Background

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendants A. Chandra, K. 

Mohr, J. Quiring, J. Charon, and J. Weiss for allegedly retaliating against plaintiff in violation of 

the First Amendment, violating plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, and conspiring to violate 

plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and against defendants Quiring and Weiss for allegedly violating 

plaintiff’s due process rights. (ECF No. 14.) 

On May 14, 2024, the Court issued the Discovery and Scheduling Order, setting the 

discovery deadline for September 13, 2024, and the pretrial motions deadline for December 6, 

2024. (ECF No. 26.) The order required written discovery requests to be served no later than 

Case 2:22-cv-01221-TLN-CSK Document 29 Filed 09/06/24 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

sixty days prior to the discovery deadline (September 13, 2024) and granted the parties 45 days 

after the written discovery is served to file their responses. (ECF No. 26 at 5 ¶¶ 1, 2.) 

Governing Standards

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.” 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, 975 F.2d at 607).

Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks to extend the discovery deadline by thirty days. (ECF No. 28 at 1.) In his 

accompanying declaration, plaintiff states that he served discovery requests on counsel for 

defendants on June 16, 2024. (Id. at 3.) On July 17, 2024, plaintiff wrote to defendants’ counsel 

seeking their discovery responses or to meet and confer within fifteen days to comply with the 

scheduling order deadlines. (Id.) In his July 17, 2024 letter to defendants’ counsel, plaintiff also 

pointed out that he timely responded to defendants’ discovery requests. (Id. at 5.) On July 16 or 

17, 2024, plaintiff received a phone call from defendants’ counsel seeking an extension of time to 

obtain some records. (Id.) Plaintiff conveyed his need to receive timely responses to his 

discovery requests; in response, plaintiff claims defendants’ counsel stated her office would seek 

an extension from the Court.1 (Id.) Counsel did not respond to plaintiff’s July 17, 2024 letter. 

(Id.) 

On August 6, 2024, plaintiff again wrote to defendants’ counsel noting it had been 50 days 

since plaintiff served his discovery requests. (Id.) On August 20, 2024, plaintiff received 

responses to his discovery requests, and contends that the responses were mostly objections and 

provided the wrong documents, and he claims that the documents he requested were not provided 

1

 The Court record does not reflect that defendants sought an extension of time to respond to 

plaintiff’s discovery requests.

Case 2:22-cv-01221-TLN-CSK Document 29 Filed 09/06/24 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

based on defendants’ claims that for the most part they could not understand the requests and 

sought to meet and confer. (Id. at 4.) On August 25, 2024, plaintiff wrote to defendants 

requesting a meet and confer as soon as possible. (Id.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff served his discovery requests on June 16, 2024; therefore, defendants’ responses 

were due on or before August 2, 2024, because July 31, 2024, fell on a Saturday. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Plaintiff did not indicate the date defendants served the responses on plaintiff, 

but it is unlikely it took 18 days for the discovery responses to reach plaintiff on August 20, 2024. 

Plaintiff has demonstrated his diligence in responding to discovery requests, in seeking 

discovery from defendants, and following up when no responses were received. The Court finds 

that there is good cause to extend the discovery deadline. Defendants’ counsel is encouraged to 

meet and confer with plaintiff concerning the discovery requests as soon as possible so that 

plaintiff may meet the revised discovery deadline. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 28 is 

granted. 

2. The discovery deadline is extended from September 13, 2024, until October 13, 2024.

3. Defendants’ counsel is encouraged to meet and confer with plaintiff concerning the 

discovery requests as soon as possible.

Dated: September 6, 2024

/1/garc1221.16b

Case 2:22-cv-01221-TLN-CSK Document 29 Filed 09/06/24 Page 3 of 3