Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00598/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00598-7/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

MARK A. SCOTT,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CASTILLO, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:20-cv-00598-ADA-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN 

DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 39.)

I. BACKGROUND

Mark Anthony Scott (“Plaintiff”) is a Kings County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case, filed on 

April 27, 2020, now proceeds against defendant C/O Castillo for use of excessive force in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment.1(ECF Nos. 1, 18 & 19.)

On March 1, 2022, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of August 1, 2022 and a 

1 On November 16, 2021, the Court issued an order for this case to proceed only with 

Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against defendant C/O Castillo, and dismissing all other claims and 

defendants. (ECF No. 19.)

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 44 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 3
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

dispositive motion filing deadline of October 1, 2022. (ECF No. 26.) On December 9, 2022, the 

Court granted Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order and extended the discovery 

deadline to March 12, 2023 and the dispositive motion filing deadline to April 12, 2023. (ECF 

No. 33.) All of these deadlines have now expired.

On April 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery for 90 days. (ECF No. 

39.) On May 11, 2023, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff 

has not filed a reply, and the time in which to do so has expired. Local Rule 230(l). 

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. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff requests that discovery be reopened for 90 days because he is incarcerated and 

has limited access to the material needed to respond to discovery. Plaintiff also seeks more time 

to obtain documents from Defendant that are crucial in proving his case.

B. Defendant’s Opposition

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery should be denied based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to show good cause. Defendant argues that Plaintiff was not diligent in 

pursuing discovery and has not explained why he failed to serve timely discovery requests and 

responses during two separate three-month discovery windows. Moreover, Defendant argues 

that reopening discovery at this late date would prejudice Defendant.

Pursuant to the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order of December 9, 2022, all 

discovery requests were to be served on or before June 1, 2022, which allowed Plaintiff three 

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 44 Filed 06/05/23 Page 2 of 3
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

months to serve discovery. (ECF No. 26.) On July 28, 2022, Plaintiff served untimely requests 

for production of documents and special interrogatories, to which Defendant served objections 

on the basis that the discovery requests were improper, untimely, and in violation of the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. (Decl. of M. Stohl ¶¶ 2, 3; exhibits A and B.) 

On December 9, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Scheduling 

Order and extended the discovery deadline for an additional 90 days to March 12, 2023.2(ECF 

No. 33.) As a result, there were a total of six months for Plaintiff to serve timely discovery, but 

he did not use any of that time. Defendant asserts that even though Plaintiff had previously 

drafted discovery requests, Plaintiff failed to serve those requests during the three-month 

discovery extension.

C. Discussion

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that with due diligence he could not have completed 

discovery by the March 12, 2023 deadline. Plaintiff has not adequately explained, other than his 

statement that he is incarcerated with limited access to material, as to why exactly he could not

complete his discovery requests and responses within the time allowed. Moreover, reopening 

the discovery phase of this action would almost certainly delay the trial in this case which was 

filed more than three years ago and should not be delayed further. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion 

to reopen discovery, filed on April 19, 2023, shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing and Plaintiff’s failure to show good cause, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery, filed on April 19, 2023, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 The modification requested by defense counsel was due to deposition scheduling issues 

related to defense counsel’s father’s unexpected passing. (ECF No. 32 at 3:14.)

Case 1:20-cv-00598-KES-GSA Document 44 Filed 06/05/23 Page 3 of 3