Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01132/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01132-17/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO FAHIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. TYSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01132-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE

DISCOVERY DEADLINE, LIMITED TO

RESOLVING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION SERVED ON JULY 1, 2008,

AND (2) REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

SERVE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 55)

Plaintiff Antonio Fahie (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed October 13, 2006, against Defendant Correa (“Defendant”) for

use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On July 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a

renewed motion seeking an extension of the discovery deadline to complete discovery with respect

to requests for admission served on Defendant on July 1, 2008. Defendant filed an opposition to the

motion on July 22, 2008, and Plaintiff filed a reply on July 31, 2008.

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16(b). “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 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If

///

Case 1:06-cv-01132-GSA Document 58 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 3
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

the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to

modify should not be granted.” Id. 

The requests for admission at issue were served on Defendant after Plaintiff received

responses to his first request for the production of documents and first set of interrogatories. Plaintiff

represents that he received the responses through institutional mail on May 28, 2008, and that he is

allowed to attend the law library every Tuesday. Plaintiff attended the law library on June 3, 2008,

where he obtained the assistance of another inmate. Thereafter, the library was closed on June 10,

2008, and June 17, 2008, and the copy machine was not functioning on June 17, 2008, and June 24,

2008. 

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff has not shown due

diligence because he did not initiate discovery until February 26, 2008, which was approximately

two months after discoveryopened, and because he foresaw the need for additional discovery in May

but did not serve his requests for admission until July. The deadline for the completion of all

discovery was July 28, 2008. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time was timely filed and the

Court finds nothing unreasonable about basing a determination whether further discovery is needed

upon a review of discovery responses received. Plaintiff has addressed the delay between the receipt

of the responses he needed to review on May 28, 2008, and service of the requests for admission on

July 1, 2008. Although Defendant argues that the law library closures and lack of copier access do

not excuse the delay, Defendant has provided no support for this argument. Based on the Court’s

experience and Plaintiff’s declaration, it would appear that the law library is the location at which

Plaintiff is permitted to work on his legal case and make the copies necessary for service. If that is

the case, and there is no information upon which to draw a different conclusion, the library closures

and lack of availability of the photo copy machine are directly relevant to the delay.

Defendant was the recipient of an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories

and requests for the production of documents, and there is no compelling argument why Plaintiff

should be denied a similar extension to complete discovery. Plaintiff has propounded one request

for the production of documents and one set of interrogatories, and seeks an extension of the

deadline to obtain a response to a set of requests for admission. There has been no showing that

Case 1:06-cv-01132-GSA Document 58 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff has engaged in abusive, harassing, or overly burdensome discovery, and the Court finds that

Plaintiff has supported his request with a showing of good cause. Accordingly, it is HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline, filed July 7, 2008, is

GRANTED;

2. The extension applies only to the requests for admission served on July 1, 2008, and,

if necessary, a motion to compel;

3. Defendant shall serve Plaintiff with a response to the requests for admission within

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and

4. If Plaintiff deems a motion to compel necessary, it must be filed within thirty (30)

days from the date of service of Defendant’s response.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01132-GSA Document 58 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 3