Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00568/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00568-5/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

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 Jesse Alfaro (“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 

McGuinness, Moon, Neubarth, John Doe and Jane Doe for deliberate indifference to serous medical 

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On February 19, 2014, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that 

order, discovery closed on October 19, 2014,1and the dispositive motion deadline is December 29, 

2014. (ECF No. 20.) 

 

1

October 19, 2014, was a Sunday.

JESSE ALFARO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM J. MCGUINNESS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00568-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST 

TO REOPEN DISCOVERY FOR THE LIMITED 

PURPOSE OF TAKING PLAINTIFF’S 

DEPOSITION AND TO EXTEND THE 

DEADLINE FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

(ECF No. 29.) 

Case 1:12-cv-00568-LJO-BAM Document 30 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 3
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

On August 20, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to 

discovery. Pursuant to that order, Plaintiff’s discovery responses were due within thirty days 

following service of the Court’s order. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff did not provide discovery responses. 

(ECF No. 29-1, Lewis Dec. ¶ 7.)

On September 23, 2014, Defendants served Plaintiff with a Notice of Deposition for October 

20, 2014. Plaintiff arrived forty minutes late and refused to be deposed due to his “medical 

condition.” (Id. ¶ 9 and Ex. 1.) 

On November 19, 2014, Defendants McGuinness, Moon and Neubarth filed the instant motion 

to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of deposing Plaintiff and to extend the dispositive motion 

deadline 120 days. (ECF No. 29.) The Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed 

submitted.2 Local Rule 230(l). 

II. Discussion

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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.

The Court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in this 

matter. Defendants have been diligent in pursuing discovery in this matter, but have been unable to 

complete Plaintiff’s deposition through no fault of their own. According to the record, Plaintiff has 

not responded to written discovery despite a court order and has not allowed for the completion of his 

deposition. (ECF No. 29-1, Lewis Dec. ¶¶ 7-9 and Ex. 1.) The deposition transcript reflects that 

Plaintiff sought a continuation of his deposition due to medical reasons and the deposition was 

terminated. (ECF No. 29-1, Ex. 1, Pl’s Dep. p. 8:2-2.) Defendants therefore require an extension of 

 

2

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the inability to respond. Defendants’ request to reopen discovery is limited in scope 

and is necessary because of Plaintiff’s actions in this case. 

Case 1:12-cv-00568-LJO-BAM Document 30 Filed 12/10/14 Page 2 of 3
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

the discovery deadline, which has passed, to complete Plaintiff’s deposition. In light of that extension, 

Defendants also require a corresponding extension of the dispositive motion deadline. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s 

deposition is GRANTED;

2. Discovery is reopened for sixty (60) days from the date of this order for the sole purpose of 

deposing Plaintiff; and

3. The dispositive motion deadline is extended one-hundred twenty (120) days from the date 

of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00568-LJO-BAM Document 30 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 3