Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN BIGOSKI ODOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 43)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

REOPEN DISCOVERY

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 44) 

Plaintiff Ryan Bigoski Odom is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Taylor, Khoo, Attinello, 

Ezenwugo, Mitchell and Singh. 

I. BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment concerning the 

merits of Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 42.) The motion included a Rand1 warning (Doc. 42-3), 

addressing the requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 46 Filed 10/28/24 Page 1 of 6
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

On October 3, 2024, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) Why Sanctions 

Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of NonOpposition to the summary judgment motion. (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff was directed to show cause in 

writing with 14 days why sanctions should not be imposed for failing to respond to Defendants’ 

summary judgment motion, or, alternatively, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 

to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 2-3.) 

On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Decleration,” docketed as an 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 44.)

Defendants filed the Declaration of Eric Miersma in Response to Plaintiff’s Declaration re 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) on October 24, 2024. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Response to the OSC

In her response to the OSC, Plaintiff “requests the court to deny defendants motion for 

summary judgment. If the court will not deny defendants motion for summary judgment, I request 

the court to stay the motion as I have not had the opportunity to complete discovery.” (Doc. 44 at 

1.) Plaintiff states “[s]ome facts are in possession of the defendants, other information I have not 

received a response back.” (Id.) Plaintiff states she expects to obtain disciplinary records 

concerning each Defendant, “as well as pertinent medical information to my specific medical 

conditions and problems. I expect to obtain this information from defendants, prior Doctors of 

mine and medical books.” (Id.) Plaintiff states she was unable to complete discovery or to 

respond to the summary judgment motion because her daughter murdered her mother on October 

27, 2023, taking a significant toll on her mental health and well-being. (Id. at 1-2.) As the eldest 

child, Plaintiff “was delegating everything that had to be done via telephone and text message.” 

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asserts her younger brother then passed away on June 12, 2024, requiring her 

to have her son “do everything that needed to be done” concerning her brother’s passing. (Id.) 

She contends she is “still attempting to deal with things from both of their deaths.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

concludes she will provide “proof of any of the above” upon request by the Court. (Id.) 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 46 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 6
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

Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to the OSC

Defense counsel declares that Plaintiff’s declaration does not oppose Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment and that it is unclear whether Plaintiff seeks more time within which to 

oppose the motion or if she seeks to reopen discovery. (Doc. 45, ¶ 3.) Counsel declares 

Defendants take no position on an extension of time concerning an opposition to the summary 

judgment motion. (Id., ¶ 4.) However, to the extent Plaintiff’s declaration can be understood to 

seek to reopen discovery, Defendants oppose the request. (Id., ¶ 5.) Defense counsel declares 

Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in conducting discovery or in seeking leave to reopen 

discovery. (Id.) Counsel states Plaintiff has not established good cause to reopen discovery five 

months after it closed. (Id.) Counsel contends a court’s primary focus is whether a party was 

diligent, and that a lack of diligence weighs heavily against reopening discovery. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7.) He 

further states Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate her discovery could not have been anticipated 

before discovery closed, nor does Plaintiff “provide any basis that any new discovery will lead to 

admissible evidence.” (Id., ¶ 8.) Counsel asks this Court to deny any request to reopen discovery. 

(Id., ¶ 9.) 

Relevant Procedural History re Discovery

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 6, 2023, more than 

one year ago. (Doc. 36.) It included a discovery deadline of May 6, 2024, and a dispositive 

motion filing deadline of July 15, 2024. (Id.) 

On July 1, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for an Extension 

of Time of the Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline, extending the deadline for filing a dispositive 

motion from July 15, 2024, to August 29, 2024. (Doc. 41.) 

Analysis

Discovery closed in this case on May 6, 2024. The only deadline extended following 

issuance of the September 6, 2023, Discovery and Scheduling Order pertained to the filing of a 

dispositive motion. The Court construes Plaintiff’s October 11, 2024, filing to be a request to 

reopen discovery and will direct the Clerk of the Court to modify the relevant docket entry. 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 46 Filed 10/28/24 Page 3 of 6
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

The Court will modify dates set forth in a scheduling order only upon a showing of good 

cause by the moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 

F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). The “good cause” standard also applies to requests to reopen 

discovery. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Reinke, 611 Fed. Appx. 381, 384 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying 

Johnson “good cause” requirement to motions to reopen discovery); Yeager v. Yeager, No. 2:06-

CV-001196 JAM-EFB, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009) (a party must show 

“good cause” to reopen discovery). 

The primary factor courts consider in making a good cause determination is whether the 

moving party was diligent in its attempts to complete discovery in a timely manner. Johnson, 975 

F.2d at 609. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end, and the request should be 

denied. Id. 

Courts consider the following factors when ruling on a motion to reopen discovery: (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, and (6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to 

relevant evidence. City of Pomona v. SQM North American Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 

2017); Coleman v. Spearman, No. 2:19-cv-00369 AC, 2024 WL 3758805, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 

12, 2024) (same). 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff was not diligent. First, Plaintiff states she has been unable 

to complete discovery, in part, due to the death of her mother on October 27, 2023, nearly one 

year ago. Even presuming Plaintiff’s discovery requests were delayed or sent after the discovery 

deadline had passed—and Plaintiff fails to provide any dates relevant to the discovery she states 

she is seeking—Plaintiff has failed to act diligently. Plaintiff could have sought an extension of 

the discovery deadline upon learning of her mother’s passing. The scheduling order expressly 

provides that “[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.” (Doc. 36 at 3, emphasis in original.) And shortly after Plaintiff initiated this action 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 46 Filed 10/28/24 Page 4 of 6
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

in August 2000, the Court’s First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights 

Case expressly warned that “all Court deadlines are strictly enforced. Requests for time 

extensions must be filed before the deadline expires and must state good request for the request. 

Local Rule 144.” (See Doc. 3 at 5.) Second, while the Court sympathizes with Plaintiff on her 

brother’s June 2024 passing, by that date, discovery in this action had already closed on May 6, 

2024. 

Concerning the Pomona factors, first, trial is not imminent here because a trial has not 

been scheduled. Thus, the first factor weighs in favor of reopening discovery. Next, Defendants 

oppose Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery but do not assert they would be prejudiced. 

Therefore, the second factor weighs against reopening discovery whereas the third factor is 

neutral or favorable. Further, as addressed above, Plaintiff was not diligent in obtaining discovery 

within this Court’s scheduling order; this factor weighs against reopening discovery. As to the 

fifth and sixth factors, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has made no showing that

she could not have anticipated the need for additional discovery considering the relevant 

deadlines, or that such discovery would lead to admissible evidence. Thus, the fifth and six 

factors weigh against reopening discovery. In sum, the relevant factors weigh against reopening 

discovery. 

Because the primary consideration—whether Plaintiff was diligent in her attempts to 

complete discovery in a timely manner—is afforded the greatest weight and because the Court 

finds Plaintiff did not act diligently, coupled with its finding that the Pomona factors weigh 

against reopening discovery in this action, Plaintiff’s request will be denied. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 

609; Pomona, 866 F.3d at 1066. See, e.g., Jerpe v. Aerospatiale, No. CIV. S-03-555 LKK/DAD, 

2007 WL 781977, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2007) (“plaintiffs delayed until after even the close of 

discovery to bring their motion to modify the scheduling order. This is, as defendants point out, 

the antithesis of diligence” under Local Rule 144).

Plaintiff Will Be Afforded Another Opportunity to Oppose the MSJ

Despite the foregoing, the Court will grant Plaintiff another opportunity to file an 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff will be directed to file any 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 46 Filed 10/28/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

opposition to the pending summary judgment motion within 30 days. In the event Plaintiff 

believes more time is required to file an opposition, she must file a request for an extension of 

time before the 30-day deadline has passed and must demonstrate good cause.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The OSC issued October 3, 2024 (Doc. 43) is DISCHARGED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to modify Docket Entry number 44 to reflect 

Plaintiff’s filing to be a response to the OSC (rather than as an opposition to the 

motion for summary judgment);

3. Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery (Doc. 44) is DENIED; and 

4. Plaintiff SHALL file any opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

A failure to obey this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey court orders and/or failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 46 Filed 10/28/24 Page 6 of 6