Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00011-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

MALCOLM YISRAEL WRIGHT,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER FOR LIMITED PURPOSE, TO 

CONTINUE DEPOSITION DATE OF 

PLAINTIFF

(Doc. 60.)

New discovery deadline: January 16, 2015

Malcolm Yisrael Wright (APlaintiff@) is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on January 4, 2010. (Doc. 1.) 

This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on January 13, 

2011, against defendants Warden Smith and Lieutenant (“Lt.”) Gonzales for interference with 

Plaintiff=s incoming mail, in violation of the First Amendment; and against Warden Smith, Lt. 

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 61 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Gonzales, and Lt. Miller for violation of his First Amendment rights to exercise his religion.1 

(Doc. 10.) 

On November 13, 2013, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing pretrial 

deadlines, including deadlines of July 13, 2014 for the parties to complete discovery, and 

September 22, 2014 for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 46.) On June 10, 2014, 

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending before the court. (Doc. 

50.) On June 30, 2014, the court granted Defendants’ request to extend the discovery deadline 

until September 8, 2014, for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. 55.)

On August 8, 2014, Defendants filed an ex-parte request to modify the scheduling order 

to extend the discovery deadline again, for the limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition. 

(Doc. 60.)

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not 

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the court=s deadline date for discovery by 

demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Defendants request another extension of the discovery deadline for the purpose of 

setting Plaintiff’s deposition, if necessary, for a date after the ruling on the pending motion for 

 

1

On September 25, 2013, the court dismissed all defendants and claims from this action except the 

claims against defendants Smith, Gonzales, and Miller for denial of access to prayer items in violation of the Free 

Exercise clause of the First Amendment, and against defendants Smith and Gonzales for interference with 

Plaintiff’s incoming mail beginning on December 24, 2007. (Doc. 41.)

 

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 61 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 4
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

summary judgment. Defendants explain that if the motion for summary judgment is successful, 

they will not need to depose Plaintiff, and the time and resources to conduct a deposition will 

not need to be expended.2 

The Court finds that Defendants have shown due diligence in filing their motion for 

summary judgment early in the discovery phase of this action, and in anticipating that the 

discovery deadline will expire before the motion for summary judgment is resolved, making it 

impossible for them to know before the expiration of discovery whether it will be necessary to 

take Plaintiff’s deposition. Therefore, the court finds good cause to extend the discovery 

deadline until January 16, 2015 for the limited purpose of Defendants taking Plaintiff=s 

deposition. However, the court shall not assure by this order that Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment filed on June 10, 2014 shall be ruled upon before January 16, 2015. Should 

Defendants require further modification to the Scheduling Order, they should file a motion 

before the expiration of the deadline at issue. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the court's Scheduling Order is GRANTED;

2. The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from September 8, 

2014 to January 16, 2015, for the limited purpose of Defendants taking 

Plaintiff=s deposition, if necessary; 

3. Plaintiff’s deposition, if any, shall be scheduled for a date not later than January 

16, 2015;

4. All other provisions of the Court's November 13, 2013 Scheduling Order remain 

the same; and

 

2 Counsel for Defendants (“Counsel”) declares that Plaintiff’s deposition was properly noticed for July 9, 

2014, at his current place of incarceration, a facility in North Carolina. (Decl. of Alyson Berg, Doc. 604-1 ¶2, 

Exh. A.) Counsel anticipated a telephonic deposition. (Id. ¶3.) On June 25, 2014, Counsel was notified that a 

telephonic deposition will not be not available at the facility in North Carolina. (Id.) As a result, Counsel 

anticipates the need to travel to North Carolina to conduct the deposition in person. 

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 61 Filed 08/11/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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. The court does not assure by this order that Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment filed on June 10, 2014 shall be ruled upon before January 16, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 61 Filed 08/11/14 Page 4 of 4