Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01446/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01446-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

Plaintiff Abel Valencia is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance under Rule 56(d) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to conduct additional discovery.

1

(ECF No. 94.) Defendant filed an 

opposition on February 11, 2016, and Plaintiff filed a reply on February 29, 2016. (ECF Nos. 95, 99.) 

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), the motion is deemed submitted. 

///

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion seeks a continuance under Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 94.) 

However, the Court presumes that Plaintiff seeks relief under subdivision, and not subdivision (f) as it deals with grounds 

for entering judgment in favor of a party independent of a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). 

ABEL VALENCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RUIZ,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

CONTINUANCE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY 

PURSUANT TO RULE 56(D) OF THE FEDERAL 

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

[ECF No. 94] 

Case 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB Document 100 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 5
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

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified 

reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering 

the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) 

issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In seeking relief under Rule 56(d), Plaintiff 

bears the burden of specifically identifying relevant information, where there is some basis for 

believing that the information actually exists, and demonstrating that the evidence sought actually 

exists and that it would prevent summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 

1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 

867-868 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-1101 (9th 

Cir. 2006). Discovery is only warned “where the non-moving party has not had the opportunity to 

discover information that is essential to its opposition.” Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Womick, 264 F.3d 

832, 846 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986).) A 

moving party is not entitled to additional discovery under Rule 56(d) “if it fails diligently to pursue 

discovery before summary judgment.” Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 

1989) (citation omitted). Indeed, “the district court does not abuse its discretion by denying further 

discovery if the movant has failed diligently to pursue discovery in the past.” Conkle v. Jeong, 73 

F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation omitted). 

On December 11, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that 

Plaintiff received all the process he was due in connection with his gang validation. (ECF No. 85.) To 

support the “some evidence” element of the offense, Defendant submitted five confidential 

memorandum (in redacted form) that were referenced in the Confidential Information Disclosure 

forms (CDC 1030) that were served on Plaintiff and used as documents for validation. After 

receiving Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time to file an opposition. (ECF 

No. 91.) Then, two weeks later, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a continuance of the summaryjudgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to conduct further discovery to oppose 

the motion. In his request for a continuance to conduct further discovery, Plaintiff contends that he 

Case 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB Document 100 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 5
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

needs to depose the authors of the confidential memorandum and an officer who intercepted a note 

directed to Plaintiff that is the subject of the December 6, 2005, confidential memorandum. (ECF No. 

94.) Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s requests for lack of diligence and for failure to demonstrate such 

information will lead to the discovery of facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. 

On September 16, 2014, the Court issued the scheduling and discovery order setting the 

deadline for completion of discovery by May 16, 2015-eight months thereafter. Defendant submits 

that on March 3, 2015, Plaintiff served his first set of production requests, requesting a copy of the 

confidential memorandums referenced in the CDC 1030. Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s requests 

on April 15, 2015, and provided redacted copies of the confidential memorandum along with the 

required privilege log. (Defs.’ Resp. Req. for Prod. 1-5, Ex. B, ECF No. 95.) On May 12, 2015, 

Defendant moved to extend the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s 

deposition. (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff did not oppose Defendant’s request, nor did he make his own 

motion to continue the deadline to conduct further discovery. Plaintiff also did not move to compel 

Defendant to further respond to the production requests, and Plaintiff did not challenge the privilege 

assertions raised by Defendant in producing redacted copies of the confidential memorandums. 

Counsel took Plaintiff’s deposition on May 19, 2015. At his deposition, Plaintiff acknowledged 

receipt of the redacted confidential memorandums Defendant produced and that he had reviewed 

them. (Dep. of Valencia at 152:11-16, Ex. C, ECF No. 95.) 

The Court finds that on this record, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in justifying relief 

under Rule 56(d). Plaintiff does not demonstrate that he was diligent in the pursuit of the information 

he now seeks to discover. Defendant produced the confidential memorandums in mid-April 2015, and 

Plaintiff admitted he had received and reviewed them by mid-May 2015 when his deposition was 

taken. However, Plaintiff fails to explain why he waited until nine months after to now challenge the 

veracity of the memorandums or to depose the authors or individuals who reviewed the 

memorandums. 

Plaintiff’s claim that he is a layman of the law and was unaware of his ability to depose third 

party witnesses is unfortunate but is not different from any other pro se litigant and does not justify a 

continuance under Rule 56(d). Further, Plaintiff’s claim of ignorance is belied by the record in this 

Case 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB Document 100 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 5
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

case. At his deposition, Plaintiff was asked whether he had made any effort to contact the officers 

who drafted the confidential memos used to validate him and he responded that he had not. (Dep. of 

Valencia at 153-154, Ex. C., ECF No. 95.) Indeed, Plaintiff stated “I don’t see the relevancy [sic] of 

me contacting them on this information if I’m already - - to me it’s irrelevant to contact them when it’s 

the dispute between the 1030s that actually was given to me by the Defendant Ruiz ...” (Id. at 153:1-

154:23.) Plaintiff further clarified that he was not contending that Defendant fabricated the original 

source referenced in the CDC 10302; rather, he claims Defendant fabricated the information contained 

in the CDC 1030s. (Id. at 154:24-155:17.) 

In support of his request for further discovery, Plaintiff contends that the five confidential 

memorandums were rejected and stamped as not meeting the validation requirement established by 

section 3378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 15. (Mot. at 1:23-27, ECF No. 94.) 

However, a review of the memorandums submitted by Defendant in support of his motion for 

summary judgment demonstrates that the word “not” is crossed out and initials appear next to the 

crossed out word, lending support to the fact that the information provided in the memorandums met 

the reliability requirements of section 3378. (Decl. of Esquivel, Ex. J at 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, ECF No. 85-4.) 

Nonetheless, even assuming the validity of Plaintiff’s contention, Plaintiff still fails to explain why he 

delayed in seeking to depose the prison officials who reviewed the confidential memorandums despite 

knowledge of their identities since April 2015. 

In addition, Plaintiff fails to explain the delay in seeking to depose officer Lee, who intercepted 

a note addressed to Plaintiff as discussed in the December 6, 2005, confidential memorandum. (Decl. 

of Esquivel, Ex. J at 1.) Plaintiff further fails to explain why the actual written note referenced in the 

memorandum is needed since the entire contents of the note were reproduced in the memorandum. 

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also fails to explain how having the entire written note will “discredit the author” 

because Plaintiff admitted at his deposition that he was not contending the information in the original 

confidential memorandums was fabricated. (Decl. of Valencia at 154:24-155:17.) Plaintiff was aware 

of the identity of officer Lee as well as the written note since April 2015, and Plaintiff has failed to 

explain the unreasonable delay in seeking to depose officer Lee or compel production of the written 

note. 

Case 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB Document 100 Filed 03/04/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

In sum, Plaintiff has not explained why he did not move to compel or seek to extend the 

discovery deadline before it expired and/or before Defendant moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff 

thus has not shown that he was diligent in pursuing discovery he now claims is essential to oppose 

summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance to conduct discovery under Rule 56(d) is DENIED; 

and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file an opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01446-AWI-SAB Document 100 Filed 03/04/16 Page 5 of 5