Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00124/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00124-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants. 

___________________________/

1:10-cv-00124-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS

TO MODIFY DEADLINES

(Docs. 36, 37.)

ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

FOR LIMITED PURPOSE

ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

DEADLINE FOR ALL PARTIES

NEW DEADLINES:

Discovery Cut-Off Date: 03/15/2013

Dispositive Motions Deadline: 04/15/2013

I. BACKGROUND

Gregory L. Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on the original Complaint filed on January

14, 2010, against defendants Lantia and Lopez for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the

Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.) On February 16, 2012, the Court entered a Discovery/Scheduling

Order establishing pretrial deadlines, including a deadline of October 16, 2012 for the parties to

complete discovery, and a deadline of December 27, 2012 for the parties to file dispositive

motions. (Doc. 18.)

1

Case 1:10-cv-00124-GSA Document 38 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 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

On October 10, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery schedule for the

limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition, and for leave to take Plaintiff’s deposition by

remote means. (Doc. 36.) On December 26, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to extend time to file

a dispositive motion. (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motions, which are now before the

Court. 

II. MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

Modification of a scheduling orderrequires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b),

and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a

scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot

meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the prejudice to the party

opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show

due diligence, the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. 

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). A party may

obtain relieffrom the court’s deadline date for discoveryby demonstrating good cause for allowing

further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Defendants request the Court to modify the discoveryschedule for this action to allow them

to take Plaintiff’s deposition within sixty days of the date the Court denies their intended motion

for summary judgment, if applicable, or in the alternative, to extend the discovery deadline for

thirty days for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants assert that they do

not need to take Plaintiff’s deposition before preparing the intended motion for summaryjudgment,

but if the summary judgment motion is denied, they will need to take Plaintiff’s deposition before

trial. Defendants argue that granting their motion will serve judicial economy, because they will

not be required to incur the cost and time to take Plaintiff’s deposition if it is not needed. Defense

counsel argues that her litigation schedule is extremely busy and she is unable to submit the motion

for summary judgment before the close of discovery. 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00124-GSA Document 38 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 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

Defendants have presented good cause to modify the discovery schedule for the limited

purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition. However, the Court shall not establish a deadline

conditioned on whether the Court grants or denies a motion which has not been filed. While the

Court is sensitive to defense counsel’s busy schedule and budgetary concerns, a deadline with

multiple contingencies causes confusion on the Court’s calendar, which does not serve judicial

economy. Instead, the Court shall reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s

deposition, the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions shall be extended, and Defendants

shall be granted leave to conduct the deposition by remote means. Defendants are not precluded

from bringing another motion to modify the schedule, showing good cause.

III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DEPOSITION BY REMOTE MEANS

Defendants request leave to take Plaintiff’s deposition, if any, by videoconference or other

remote means. The Court finds good cause to grant the request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4)

which authorizes the Court to allow a deposition to be taken by telephone or other remote means. 

IV. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION

Defendants also request an extension of time to file a dispositive motion. Defense counsel

argues that due to the holidays, Defendants have been unable to review and sign the declarations

necessary to complete the motion for summary judgment, and due to defense counsel’s busy

litigation schedule, she has been unable to complete the motion for summary judgment. The Court

finds good cause, pursuant to Rule 16(b) discussed above, to extend the dispositive motions

deadline established by the Court’s Discovery/Scheduling Order of February 16, 2012. Therefore,

the motion for extension of time shall be granted.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to extend the discovery schedule for this action, established by

the Court’s Discovery/Scheduling Order of October 12, 2012, is GRANTED;

///

3

Case 1:10-cv-00124-GSA Document 38 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 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

2. Discovery is now reopened until March 15, 2013, for the limited purpose of taking

Plaintiff’s deposition;

3. Defendants’ request to take Plaintiff’s deposition by videoconference or other

remote means is GRANTED;

4. Defendants’ motion for extension of time to file a dispositive motion, filed on

December 26, 2012, is GRANTED;

5. The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is extended until April 15, 2013,

for all parties to this action; and

6. All other provisions of the Court’s Discovery/Scheduling Order of October 12,

2012 remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 7, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-00124-GSA Document 38 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 4