Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252-15/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

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

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Michael Mootry (“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 against 

Defendants Hedgpeth, Flores, Wegman, Lewis and Cabrera for violations of the Free Exercise Clause 

of the First Amendment. 

On January 22, 2014, the Court modified the scheduling order in this matter and extended the 

discovery deadline to March 9, 2014. The dispositive motion deadline remained March 31, 2014. 

On March 7, 2014, Defendants sought to modify the discovery and scheduling order and 

extend the dispositive motion deadline to May 30, 2014, in order to permit defense counsel additional 

time to complete a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 81-1, pp. 3, 5-6.) Plaintiff did not 

oppose the modification and concurrently requested that the Court reset the discovery deadline for 

MICHAEL MOOTRY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. G. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S NUNC PRO 

TUNC MOTION TO REOPEN AND EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE

(ECF No. 92)

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 93 Filed 07/31/14 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

forty-five days after the dispositive motion deadline. He also requested permission to file motions to 

compel and motions for production. (ECF No. 82.) 

On March 20, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to extend the dispositive motion 

deadline. However, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline and file 

discovery motions. The Court informed Plaintiff that he was not precluded from requesting 

modification of the discovery and scheduling order to extend the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 83.)

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting modification of the discovery and 

scheduling order to extend the discovery deadline an additional thirty days. (ECF No. 84.) On May 

14, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request and extended the discovery deadline an additional sixty 

(60) days to allow Plaintiff to serve his requests for production of documents and to file any necessary 

motions to compel production. The dispositive motion deadline was extended a corresponding sixty 

(60) days. (ECF No. 86.) Pursuant to the Court’s order, the discovery deadline expired on July 14, 

2014, and the dispositive motion deadline is August 12, 2014. 

On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling further responses to certain 

requests for production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Defendants opposed the motion on June 

16, 2014. (ECF No. 88.) Plaintiff’s reply was due on or before June 26, 2014. Local Rule 230(l)

(reply due seven (7) days after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (three 

(3) days added for service by mail). Plaintiff did not file a timely reply. The motion was deemed 

submitted and the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel on July 21, 2014. (ECF No. 91.) 

On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that the Court reopen discovery 

and extend the discovery deadline an additional sixty (60) days to September 23, 2014. (ECF No. 92.) 

The Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted.1 Local Rule 230(l).

///

///

///

 

1 Defendants will not be prejudiced by an inability to respond as Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause to 

reopen discovery. 

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 93 Filed 07/31/14 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

II. Motion to Reopen Discovery

Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery and extend the discovery deadline in this matter. In 

essence, Plaintiff’s motion is a request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order to extend the 

discovery deadline. 

A. Relevant Legal Standard

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met 

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry 

should end. Id.

B. Discussion

Plaintiff appears to seek the reopening of discovery for two purposes: (1) to allow him an 

opportunity to submit a reply in support of his motion to compel filed on June 2, 2014; and (2) to serve 

additional interrogatories and request for admissions. Neither of these purposes supports the 

reopening of discovery.

With regard to his reply, Plaintiff reports that he completed his reply on July 8, 2014, and 

could not make copies of it on July 9, 2014, because the law library was closed. (ECF No. 92, p. 3 and 

Ex. A.) As noted above, however, Plaintiff’s reply was due on or before June 26, 2014, well before he 

completed it. Plaintiff does not explain why he did not seek an extension of time before the expiration 

of deadline to file his reply or why he did not seek an extension of time between the filing deadline 

and the Court’s issuance of its order denying the motion to compel nearly a month later. There is no 

evidence that Plaintiff proceeded diligently in filing a timely reply or seeking an extension of time to 

file a reply. 

With regard to service of additional discovery, Plaintiff reports that he received three responses 

to his requests for production of documents in the period of time between May 14 and July 14, 2014. 

Plaintiff contends that these responses were insufficient and lead to questions he needs to address via 

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 93 Filed 07/31/14 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

interrogatories and admissions. (ECF No. 92, pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff has attached exhibits to his moving 

papers demonstrating that Defendants submitted a second supplemental response to Plaintiff’s requests 

for production of documents on June 27, 2014, and a third supplemental response on July 14, 2014. 

(ECF No. 92, Ex. B.) 

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request to compel further responses to his requests for 

production of documents. Plaintiff does not explain why he waited nearly a month after receiving 

Defendants’ second supplemental response to seek the reopening of discovery. Defendants (and 

Plaintiff) are under a continuing obligation throughout this action to supplement their responses to 

discovery in a timely manner if they learn that a response is incomplete or incorrect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(e). This continuing obligation does not mandate the reopening of discovery. Plaintiff also does not 

identify the nature of the supplemental responses or demonstrate how they require service of 

additional interrogatories and requests for admissions. Plaintiff also fails to identify the proposed 

interrogatories and requests for admissions. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons discussed, the Court does not find good cause to modify the scheduling order. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, filed on July 28, 2014, is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 93 Filed 07/31/14 Page 4 of 4