Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00986-4/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

SURINDER BAINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-0986 CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On August 2, 2024, defendants filed their 

first motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order based on plaintiff’s recent request to 

extend his deadlines to respond to defendants’ discovery requests. (ECF No. 18.) Defendants 

seek to extend the deadlines by sixty days to enable the parties to receive and review the 

discovery responses and take plaintiff’s deposition. As discussed below, defendants’ motion is 

granted. 

Background

On April 29, 2024, the Court issued the Discovery and Scheduling Order, setting the 

discovery deadline for August 16, 2024, and the pretrial motions deadline for November 8, 2024. 

(ECF No. 15.) 

On August 1, 2024, plaintiff was granted thirty days to respond to defendant Adams’ first 

set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents. (ECF No. 17.)

Case 2:23-cv-00986-CSK Document 19 Filed 08/07/24 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

27

28

2

Governing Standards

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 

‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 

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

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

Discussion

Defendants have shown good cause to extend this Court’s deadlines. Plaintiff’s discovery 

responses are now due after the discovery deadline, and defendants require additional time to 

receive and review such responses before taking plaintiff’s deposition. The extension of the 

discovery deadline will also require extending the pretrial motions deadline. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 18) is 

granted. 

2. The discovery deadline is extended from August 16, 2024, until October 15, 2024.

3. The pretrial motions deadline is extended from November 8, 2024, until January 7, 

2025. 

Dated: August 6, 2024

/1/bain0986.16b

Case 2:23-cv-00986-CSK Document 19 Filed 08/07/24 Page 2 of 2