Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01585-14/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

ESMELING L. BAHENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MENDOZA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01585-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SIXTY-DAY EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY AND TO 

DEPOSE AND COMPEL DEFENDANT 

MENDOZA

(ECF No. 66)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 67)

Discovery Deadline: September 20, 2024

Dispositive Motion Deadline: December 2, 2024

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Esmeling L. Bahena (“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 proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant Mendoza (“Defendant”) for excessive 

force and deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All 

parties have consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 40.)

Pursuant to the Court’s November 20, 2023 Discovery and Scheduling Order, the deadline 

for completion of discovery was July 22, 2024,

1

and the deadline for filing all dispositive motions 

1 The original discovery deadline was July 20, 2024. (ECF No. 50.) As this date falls on a Saturday, the deadline is 

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 68 Filed 08/02/24 Page 1 of 5
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

(other than a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust) is September 30, 2024. (ECF 

No. 50.)

II. The Parties’ Motions

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension of time to 

complete all discovery and to depose and compel Defendant Mendoza, and Defendant’s motion to 

modify the discovery and scheduling order to depose Plaintiff, both filed July 22, 2024. (ECF 

Nos. 66, 67.) Although neither party has had the opportunity to file a response, the Court finds 

further briefing unnecessary. The motions are deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

In his motion, Plaintiff requests a sixty to ninety-day extension of the discovery deadline 

so that he may complete discovery, depose Defendant, and file a motion to compel regarding 

previously-requested documents. (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff states that an extension is necessary 

because he is currently litigating two other cases, and it is difficult for Plaintiff to attend the law 

library. Plaintiff also alleges that he is facing retaliation from officers at his institution, who are 

throwing away his mail or not turning in his mail to be sent. Plaintiff was recently admitted to a 

mental crisis hospital and is pending transfer to a mental health hospital. Due to his imminent 

transfer, Plaintiff’s property will be transpacked and it may take thirty to sixty days for him to 

receive his property, including his legal paperwork and documents, once he arrives at the new 

facility. (Id.)

Defendant, in turn, requests a modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order to 

extend the deadline to take Plaintiff’s deposition and file any corresponding motion to compel, 

and to file any dispositive motions, by thirty days. (ECF No. 67.) Defendant states that during 

Plaintiff’s properly-noticed July 10, 2024 deposition, the parties agreed to postpone Plaintiff’s 

deposition by 30 days pending resolution of Plaintiff’s request for postponement of the deposition 

and request for appointment of counsel. That motion was filed with the Court later the same date 

and was denied without prejudice on July 12, 2024. (ECF Nos. 64, 65.) Defendant states that 

good cause exists for the requested modification because defense counsel has worked diligently to 

extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, which is July 22, 2024. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(A)(1)(C).

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 68 Filed 08/02/24 Page 2 of 5
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

analyze and develop defenses, assess the basis and viability of a motion for summary judgment, 

and prepare to depose Plaintiff during the discovery phase. (ECF No. 67.) Defendant has 

attached a certified copy of the deposition transcript from July 10, 2024. (Id., Ex. A.) While the 

parties agreed to a thirty-day extension to allow the Court to rule on Plaintiff’s pending motion 

for appointment of counsel and to complete Plaintiff’s deposition at a later date, they did not 

discuss extending the dispositive motion deadline or agree to an extension greater than thirty

days. (Id.) Defendant requests a thirty-day extension of time, until August 21, 2024, to take 

Plaintiff’s deposition and file any motion to compel, and until October 30, 2024, to file any 

dispositive motions. (ECF No. 67.)

III. Discussion

Having considered the requests, the Court finds good cause to grant, in part, the requested 

modifications of the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). After agreement by the parties, 

Plaintiff’s deposition was not completed on July 10, 2024, although Defendant was diligent in 

properly noticing Plaintiff’s deposition prior to the original discovery deadline. Thus, the Court 

grants Defendant’s request to extend the discovery deadline to allow Defendant to take Plaintiff’s 

deposition and file any motion to compel related to the deposition. The Court further finds that, 

in light of Plaintiff’s imminent transfer and lack of access to his legal property, an extension of 

sixty days, rather than thirty, is appropriate. Plaintiff informed defense counsel of his intention to 

request an extension of at least sixty days at the time of the July 10, 2024 deposition, but 

Defendant did not argue in their own motion that they would be prejudiced by a longer extension. 

The Court therefore finds that Defendant will not be prejudiced by the longer extension granted 

here.

The dispositive motion deadline will also be extended by sixty days. In light of Plaintiff’s 

request that discovery be extended by sixty to ninety days, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not 

be prejudiced by extension of this deadline.

Plaintiff’s requested modifications are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff will be 

permitted to file a motion to compel relating to any outstanding discovery requests, so long as 

those discovery requests were served on Defendant prior to the original July 22, 2024 

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 68 Filed 08/02/24 Page 3 of 5
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

discovery deadline. However, with respect to any new discovery requests, such as noticing and 

taking Defendant Mendoza’s deposition, Plaintiff has not explained why he waited until just days 

before the end of discovery to request an extension of this deadline. Plaintiff also has not 

demonstrated that he was diligent in attempting to take Defendant’s deposition prior to this date, 

or that he was otherwise prevented from conducting this discovery before the original deadline. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline to take Defendant’s deposition, or 

to serve any new discovery requests, is denied.

Finally, in light of the discussion between Plaintiff and defense counsel during Plaintiff’s 

July 10, 2024 deposition, the Court notes that Plaintiff is required by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and this Court’s order to participate in a deposition that is properly noticed. As stated 

in the Court’s November 20, 2023 Discovery and Scheduling Order, “Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), Defendant may depose Plaintiff and any other witness confined in a 

prison upon condition that, at least fourteen (14) days before such a deposition, Defendant serves 

all parties with the notice required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1).” (ECF No. 50, p. 

2.) So long as proper notice is provided to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s participation in his deposition is 

required. No further Court order is necessary.

IV. Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for 60-day extension of time to complete discovery and depose and 

compel Defendant Mendoza, (ECF No. 66), is GRANTED IN PART;

2. Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order, (ECF No. 67), is GRANTED;

3. The deadline for completion of discovery is extended from July 22, 2024 to September 

20, 2024, for the limited purposes of:

a. Allowing Defendant to take Plaintiff’s deposition and file any necessary motion to 

compel; and

b. Allowing Plaintiff to file any necessary motion to compel related only to 

discovery requests served on Defendant prior to July 22, 2024;

///

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 68 Filed 08/02/24 Page 4 of 5
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

4. The deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment 

for failure to exhaust) is extended from September 30, 2024 to December 2, 2024; and

5. A request for an extension of a deadline set in this order must be filed on or before 

the expiration of the deadline in question and will only be granted on a showing of 

good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01585-BAM Document 68 Filed 08/02/24 Page 5 of 5