Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00759/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00759-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVONTE B. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROXANNE COLEMAN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00759-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 36)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY 

DEADLINE (Doc. 37) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendant moved to modify the scheduling order on March 14, 2022 (Doc. 36) and Plaintiff 

moved to extend the discovery deadline on March 25, 2022 (Doc. 37). 

I. THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on October 15, 2021. It provided as 

follows:

The schedule for this action is as follows:

A. The deadline for motions challenging exhaustion of 

administrative remedies is 01/15/2022;

B. The deadline for amending the pleadings is 02/12/2022; 

C. The deadline for completion of all discovery, including filing 

motions to compel, is 03/15/2022; and

Case 1:20-cv-00759-KES-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/29/22 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

D. The deadline for filing pre−trial dispositive motions is 

05/16/2022. 

(Doc. 33 at 3.) The Order further provides that “[a] request for extension of any deadline set in 

this order must be filed at least two weeks before it expires. The deadlines set forth above are 

firm and will only be extended upon a showing of good cause.” (Id., emphasis in original.) 

II. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER

On March 14, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. 36.)

The motion was filed one day prior to the expiration of the March 15, 2022, discovery deadline.

Defendant contends the current deadline to conclude discovery would not allow for the 

taking of Plaintiff’s deposition by videoconference, a requirement given the COVID-19 

pandemic, within the deadline previously set. (Doc. 36 at 2.) Defense counsel declares he

“recently contacted the litigation coordinator at California State Prison, Corcoran” and was 

provided an available date of March 7, 2022. (Doc. 36-2 at 1-2, ¶ 3.) Defense counsel was unable 

to accommodate that date as it “conflicted with [his] own schedule.” (Id.) Counsel was advised 

that given the “limited availability of videoconference equipment,” the next available 

videoconference could not be accommodated until “the beginning of April 2022.” (Id.) Defense 

counsel, therefore, seeks to extend the deadline for all discovery from March 15, 2022, to April 

15, 2022, in order to take Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. 36-1 at 5-6, 36-2 at 2, ¶ 4.) Defendant also 

seeks an extension of the deadline for filing dispositive motions from May 16, 2022, to June 13, 

2022. (Doc. 36-1 at 6.) 

The Court notes that defense counsel does not identify the date on which he contacted the 

litigation coordinator to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition. That information is relevant in 

determining whether Defendant’s request is time - particularly where his motion was filed one 

day prior to expiration of the relevant deadline. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff’s deposition 

cannot be accommodated prior to expiration of the deadline, the Court will find good cause. 

//

//

//

Case 1:20-cv-00759-KES-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/29/22 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

III. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE

Plaintiff seeks a 60-day extension of the discovery deadline “from the date of [the 

Court’s] order.” (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff signed and dated the instant motion two days after the March 

15, 2022, deadline for completing all discovery had passed. 

Plaintiff states he “previously moved to extend [the] discovery deadline on 2/25/22,” but 

apparently “mis[s]tated” his “intent because the Court interpreted it as a need to respond to 

discovery,” rather than a need for an extension.1(Doc. 37 at 2, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff states he needs the 

additional time “to propound discovery requests upon Defendant while allowing her 45 days to 

respond.” (Doc. 37 at 2, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff explains that his obligations in other litigation pending 

before this Court, coupled with the fact Plaintiff has access to his legal materials only on a boxfor-box, case-by-case basis, requires such an extension. (Doc. 37 at 2-3, ¶¶ 4-7.) 

Because Plaintiff timely sought to extend the discovery deadline with his February 2022 

request, and because the Court misunderstood that nature of his request, the Court finds good 

cause to extend the discovery deadline despite the fact Plaintiff filed the instant request after the 

discovery deadline had passed.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons given above, IT IS ORDERED that the Discovery and Scheduling Order 

(Doc. 33) be MODIFIED as follows:

1. The deadline for completing all discovery is extended to Friday, May 27, 2022; and 

2. The deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is extended to Monday, June 27, 

2022. 

The parties are advised no further extensions of time will be entertained unless the request 

is both timely and supported by good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

1 Plaintiff sought an extension of the discovery deadline until May 14, 2022 (Doc. 34 at 1), stating, in part, that he 

could not “draft ... discovery responses” (id. at 2-3, emphasis added) until he was in possession of legal paperwork 

related to this action. 

Case 1:20-cv-00759-KES-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/29/22 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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00759-KES-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/29/22 Page 4 of 4