Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01390/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01390-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1390 LKK EFB P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On November 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. For the

reasons explained below, the motion is denied.

The court may modify a schedule only upon a showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline

despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th

Cir. 1992). The schedule issued on July 28, 2006, ordered the parties to complete discovery,

including filing any motions to compel, no later than October 27, 2006. On September 30, 2006,

the court granted defendant Schwartz a 30-day extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s first set

of interrogatories. Plaintiff did not seek a corresponding extension of the discovery cutoff date.

////

Case 2:04-cv-01390-LKK -EFB Document 61 Filed 12/26/06 Page 1 of 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

2

 Instead, plaintiff filed his motion to compel on November 8, 2006, well after the close of

discovery. Moreover, plaintiff has not attached defendant’s answers to his interrogatories. This

omission not only prevents the court from determining whether good cause exists that justifies

modifying the schedule, but also prevents the court from addressing the merits of the motion if

such cause exists. See L. R. 33-250(c). Plaintiff’s motion is late and in any event cannot be

resolved in its present form. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 8, 2006, motion to compel is

denied. 

Dated: December 26, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01390-LKK -EFB Document 61 Filed 12/26/06 Page 2 of 2