Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00503/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00503-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIJON KINNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

P.D. BRAZELTON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO REOPEN DISCOVERY (ECF No. 51)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO 

SUBMIT DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA 

REVIEW

ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONFERENCE

Date: June 21, 2016

Time: 2:00 p.m.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against 

Defendant Flores on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for inadequate medical care 

and cruel and unusual punishment.

Discovery in this action closed on July 7, 2015. (ECF No. 20.) The deadline was 

extended to July 21, 2015 for the limited purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s deposition outof-state. (ECF No. 30.) 

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 56 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 6
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

After the expiration of the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff moved to extend the 

discovery cut-off by ninety days. (ECF No. 33.) The motion was denied for failure to 

show good cause. (ECF No. 35.)

On October 2, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 

37.) The motion is fully briefed and pending disposition by the Court. (See ECF Nos. 39, 

42, 44, 47, 50.) 

Plaintiff again moved to re-open discovery on January 15, 2016, presumably to 

seek evidence in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 46.) 

That motion also was denied for failure to show good cause. (ECF No. 51.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion to reopen discovery. (ECF No. 51.) The 

instant motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).1 Defendant 

filed no opposition and the time for doing so has passed. The matter is deemed 

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) permits the Court to delay consideration of 

a motion for summary judgment to allow parties to obtain discovery to oppose the 

motion. When a motion for summary judgment is filed “before a party has had any 

realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case,” a Rule 56(d) 

motion should be freely granted. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003).

A party asserting that discovery is necessary to oppose a motion for summary 

judgment “shall provide a specification of the particular facts on which discovery is to be 

had or the issues on which discovery is necessary.” Local Rule 260(b). However, where 

“no discovery whatsoever has taken place, the party making a Rule 56[(d)] motion 

cannot be expected to frame its motion with great specificity as to the kind of discovery 

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion refers to Rule 56(f); however, this appears to be an erroneous reference to the pre-2010 

version of the Rules. The provisions for delaying consideration of a motion for summary judgment to allow 

for additional discovery are now contained in Rule 56(d).

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 56 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 6
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

likely to turn up useful information, as the ground for such specificity has not yet been 

laid.” Burlington N., 323 F.3d at 774. “The Courts which have denied a Rule 56[(d)] 

application for lack of sufficient showing to support further discovery appear to have 

done so where it was clear that the evidence sought was almost certainly nonexistent or 

was the object of pure speculation.” VISA Int’l. Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 

784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

Where a party requests to reopen discovery after discovery has closed, the 

request also must meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Districts 

courts must enter scheduling orders that “limit the time to join other parties, amend the 

pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once 

entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the 

court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case 

management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th 

Cir.1992). As such, a scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, 

which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Id. (quoting Gestetner 

Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Good cause must be 

shown for modification of the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Ninth Circuit 

explained:

Rule 16(b)'s “good cause” standard primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district 

court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably 

be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension. Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a 

finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. 

Although the existence of a degree of prejudice to the party 

opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to 

deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving 

party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not 

diligent, the inquiry should end.

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, 

parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to the schedule throughout the course of the 

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 56 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 6
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

litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). The party 

requesting modification of a scheduling order may be required to show:

(1) that she was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a 

workable Rule 16 order, (2) that her noncompliance with a 

Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her 

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of 

matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or 

anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference, 

and (3) that she was diligent in seeking amendment of the 

Rule 16 order, once it become apparent that she could not 

comply with the order.

Id. at 608 (internal citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks (1) a copy of his own deposition (2) documents pertaining to 

internal affairs investigations and investigations by the Office of the Inspector General 

into the incident at issue in this case, (3) video footage of the incident, and (4) 

photographs taken by medical staff and the Office of the Inspector General. 

In support of his motion, Plaintiff claims that he believed he would be represented 

by counsel in this action and therefore did not pursue discovery as required. Attached to 

the motion are documents reflecting that Plaintiff conferred with counsel in 2012 and 

early 2013 and, indeed, may have signed a retainer agreement with an attorney. It is 

unclear whether counsel was retained for purposes of filing suit in relation to this incident

or something else. Regardless, this action was filed by Plaintiff himself in April 2014. 

Given Plaintiff’s decision to initiate this action pro se after conferring with counsel, he 

cannot credibly claim that he believed he was represented in this action. He therefore 

fails to present good cause to justify reopening discovery. 

Nevertheless, to facilitate the efficient resolution of discovery issues and enable 

summary judgment and/or trial to proceed upon consideration of all relevant evidence, 

the Court will set this matter for a telephonic discovery dispute conference. The parties 

will be ordered to meet and confer, prior to the conference, and to attempt to resolve 

without Court intervention Plaintiff’s requests for transcripts, videos, and photographs. 

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 56 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Defense counsel will be ordered to provide certain records, specified below, for the 

Court’s in camera review prior to the conference. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 51) is DENIED.

2. This matter is set for a telephonic discovery dispute conference on June 21, 

2016 at 2:00 p.m.

3. Defense counsel shall arrange for Plaintiff’s participation in the conference.

4. The Parties shall participate by calling (888) 204-5984 and then entering 

access code 4446176#.

5. Prior to the conference, the parties shall meet and confer to attempt to resolve 

Plaintiff’s requests for transcripts, videos, and photographs.

6. No later than June 15, 2016, Defendant shall submit to 

mjsorders@caed.uscourts.gov the following documents for in camera review: 

any and all documents in Defendant's possession, custody, or subject to his

control relating to the investigation of the August 14, 2012 incident by the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and/or the Office of 

the Inspector General.

7. Simultaneous with such submission, Defendant shall file and serve a 

statement of objections, if any he has, to release of such documents to 

Plaintiff. Objections that the discovery requests are untimely need not be 

repeated. If Defendant contends that such documents should only be released 

pursuant to a protective order, Defendant may provide a proposed protective 

order for the Court’s review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 56 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 6
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

6

8.

Case 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS Document 56 Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 6