Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01353-10/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

LAYLA SUGGETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1353 TLN CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to extend the 

discovery and pretrial motion deadlines by 120 days or, in the alternative, for a new scheduling 

order, filed October 29, 2024. (ECF No. 34.) For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is 

granted in part and denied in part. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

In determining whether to modify a scheduling order, the Court considers the “good 

cause” standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4), a “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.” Id.; Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992)) (“the pretrial 

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 35 Filed 10/31/24 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

2

scheduling order can only be modified ‘upon a showing of good cause’”). Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good 

cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” In re W. 

States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district 

court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 

party seeking the extension.’” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory 

committee’s notes on the 1983 amendment). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of 

diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. The focus of the inquiry is upon the 

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

On July 9, 2024, this Court issued a discovery and scheduling order stating that the parties 

may conduct discovery until November 1, 2024. (ECF No. 28.) Any motions to compel were to 

be filed by that date. (Id. at 5.) The deadline for pretrial motions is January 24, 2025. (Id.)

In the pending motion, defendants request that the Court extend the discovery and pretrial 

motion deadlines by 120 days or, in the alternative, issue a new scheduling order setting these 

dates. (ECF No. 34 at 1.) In support of this request, defendants refer to the declaration of defense 

counsel. (ECF No. 34-1.) In this declaration, defense counsel states that on August 19, 2024, 

defense counsel mailed special interrogatories and requests for production of documents to 

plaintiff. (Id. at 2.) Pursuant to the scheduling order, plaintiff’s responses to the discovery 

requests were due forty-five days from August 19, 2024. (ECF No. 28 at 4.) On October 3, 2024, 

plaintiff timely mailed her responses to defense counsel. (ECF No. 34-1 at 2.) 

In the declaration, defense counsel states that upon reviewing plaintiff’s responses, they 

observed that plaintiff did not answer “several” interrogatories and requests for production, citing 

privacy, relevance and confidentiality concerns. (Id.) Because this information is crucial for 

plaintiff’s deposition, defense counsel “recently” mailed meet and confer correspondences to 

plaintiff regarding her responses. (Id.) Defense counsel does not state the date on which they

mailed the meet and confer correspondences to plaintiff. Defense counsel also does not state the 

deadline they gave plaintiff to respond to the meet and confer correspondences. Defense counsel 

states that if plaintiff fails to respond or amend her responses, defense counsel will file a motion 

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 35 Filed 10/31/24 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

3

to compel. (Id.) Defense counsel also states that they intend to file a motion to consolidate the 

instant action with another action plaintiff is proceeding with in this court, 2:23-cv-00907 TLN 

JDP. (Id.) Defense counsel states that both actions arise from the same underlying events and 

occurrences, specifically related to plaintiff’s attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication, 

Adderall. (Id.) Defense counsel states that both cases involve largely the same parties, the same 

counsel, the same causes of action and both are currently at issue. (Id.) Defense counsel states 

that once these actions are consolidated, defense counsel plans to proceed with plaintiff’s 

deposition as most, if not all, of the factual and legal issues are common to both cases. (Id.) 

Additionally, many of the same witnesses, experts and evidence will be relevant to both cases. 

(Id.) Based on these circumstances, defendants request a 120 day extension of the discovery and 

pretrial motion deadlines. (Id.)

This Court observes that in defendants’ response to the order to show cause for their 

failure to waive service, filed June 19, 2024, defendants represented that upon the filing of their 

answer in the instant action, defendants intended to file a motion to consolidate the instant action 

with 2:23-cv-00907. (ECF No. 25 at 5.) Defendants filed their answer on July 1, 2024. (ECF 

No. 27.) 

The pending request for a 120 day extension of the discovery and pretrial motion 

deadlines is largely based on defendants’ intent to file a motion to consolidate. However, in the 

pending motion, defendants do not address why they did not file the motion to consolidate earlier 

in this litigation, as they stated in their June 19, 2024 filing. For this reason, this Court finds that 

defendants have not shown good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines

by 120 days based on their intention to file a motion to consolidate.

While the Court appreciates defendants’ attempt to resolve the discovery disputes with 

plaintiff by way of confer correspondences, the discovery and scheduling order states that Local 

Rule 251 does not apply.1 (ECF No. 28 at 5.) Moreover, defendants fail to address when they 

mailed plaintiff the confer correspondences and the deadlines given plaintiff to respond. 

1

 Local Rule 251(b) states, in relevant part, that a motion to compel shall not be heard unless the 

parties have conferred and attempted to resolve their differences. 

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 35 Filed 10/31/24 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

4

Nevertheless, having considered the record, this Court finds good cause to grant defendants a 

thirty day extension of time to file a motion to compel. If defendants do not file a motion to 

consolidate the instant action with 2:23-cv-00907 within thirty days of the date of this order, 

defendants may seek an extension of time to depose plaintiff and an extension of the pretrial

motion deadline.

2

 The January 24, 2025 pretrial motion deadline remains in effect at this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to extend the discovery and pretrial motion deadlines (ECF No. 

34) is granted in part;

2. Defendants are granted thirty days from the date of this order to file a motion to 

compel; and 

3. The January 24, 2025 pretrial motion deadline remains in effect at this time.

Dated: October 30, 2024

Sugg1353.eot

2

2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, this Court takes judicial notice of the discovery and 

scheduling order filed August 8, 2024 in 2:23-cv-00907 setting the discovery deadline for 

February 7, 2025 and the pretrial motion deadline for June 20, 2025. If the instant action and 

2:23-cv-00907 are shortly consolidated, defendants may seek to depose plaintiff and to file a 

dispositive pretrial motion regarding the claims raised in the instant action on or before the 

discovery and pretrial motion deadlines set in 2:23-cv-00907.

Case 2:23-cv-01353-TLN-JDP Document 35 Filed 10/31/24 Page 4 of 4