Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01272-12/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 

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. RALLOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-1272 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to serve written discovery requests. 

ECF No. 70. 

The time for serving written discovery requests closed on October 3, 2022. ECF No. 50 at 

5. Plaintiff now seeks to re-open this deadline on the ground that he recently learned defendants 

were untruthful in responding to discovery requests related to prior lawsuits and inmate appeals. 

ECF No. 70 at 1-2. In considering whether to grant a motion to amend the scheduling order and 

re-open discovery, the court is to consider: 

“1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) 

whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the 

moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the 

guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need 

for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by 

the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to 

relevant evidence.” 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 71 Filed 03/23/23 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 

City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting United 

States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995)). It is 

“significant” that a party is seeking to re-open discovery rather than extend the discovery 

deadline. W. Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1524 (9th Cir. 1990). “The 

difference [between the two types of requests] is considerable” because “a request for an 

extension acknowledges the importance of a deadline, [while] a retroactive request suggests that 

the party paid no attention at all to the deadline.” Id. 

Although trial is not imminent and plaintiff has identified the reason for the belated 

request, it is not clear that re-opening discovery is necessary to address the issue. Plaintiff 

appears to be alleging that defendants have withheld information responsive to requests that have 

already been served (ECF No. 70 at 1-2), and these responses appear to be addressed in plaintiff’s 

extensive pending motions to compel (ECF Nos. 54, 57). It is therefore unclear why additional 

discovery is necessary to address the alleged deficiency of responses that are already the subject 

of a motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery will therefore be denied without 

prejudice to a motion that identifies the specific additional requests plaintiff seeks to propound 

and explains why the pending motions to compel are not sufficient to address allegedly deficient 

response. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery 

(ECF No. 70) is denied without prejudice.

DATED: March 22, 2023 

Case 2:20-cv-01272-TLN-AC Document 71 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 2