Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-38/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01461-KES-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF Nos. 139, 143, 146)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling 

order, filed on January 26, 2024. (ECF No. 139.) 

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action is proceeding Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants B. 

Gonzales, G. Morales, K. Gonzales, and Anderson in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on October 19, 2022. (ECF No. 48.) 

On November 22, 2022, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 

59.) 

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 90.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 154 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 5
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 June 5, 2023, Defendant Anderson filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to 

exhaust the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 91.) 

On June 6, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery and to modify the 

scheduling order. (ECF No. 92.) 

On June 7, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay and reset the pending 

deadlines until a final ruling on Defendant Anderson’s exhaustion motion for summary judgment, 

which included briefing on Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 93.) 

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed two separate motions to compel discovery. (ECF Nos. 

98, 99.) 

On September 11, 2023, Findings and Recommendations were issued to deny Defendant 

Anderson’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 114.) 

On September 27, 2023, the Court set this case for a settlement conference at Corcoran 

State Prison on November 6, 2023, but the case did not settle. (ECF Nos. 117, 123.) 

On October 25, 2023, Defendant Anderson’s exhaustion motion for summary judgment 

was denied. (ECF No. 122.) 

On November 8, 2023, the Court lifted the stay of discovery, directed Defendants to file a 

response to Plaintiff’s pending motions to compel within thirty days, and extended the discovery 

and dispositive motion filing deadlines. (ECF No. 125.) 

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed another motion to compel. (ECF No. 132.) On 

February 28, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to this motion to compel. (ECF No. 145.) 

Plaintiff filed a reply on March 11, 2024, along with a separate motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 

147.) 

After receiving an extension of time, Defendants filed oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions to 

compel (ECF Nos. 90, 98, 99) on January 12, 2024 and January 16, 2024, respectively. (ECF 

Nos. 133, 134, 135.) On January 29, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s 

motions to compel (ECF Nos. 90, 98, 99), and ordered Defendants to produce “grievances and 

complaints against Defendants for excessive force in which the incidents occurred no more than 

ten years prior to the events at issue in this case.” (ECF No. 140 at 13.) In addition, the Court 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 154 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 5
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

ordered Defendants to produce the May 11, 2020 Daily Activity Report. (Id. at 15.) 

On January 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed yet another motion to compel. (ECF No. 136.) 

On February 12, 2024, Defendants filed a reply to the motion to compel. (ECF No. 142.) 

Plaintiff filed a reply on February 23, 2024. (ECF No. 144.) 

On February 16, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to modify the 

scheduling order attached as an exhibit to a reply to Defendants’ opposition to his June 2, 2023 

motion to compel (ECF No. 90). (ECF Nos. 139, 143.) Plaintiff filed a reply on March 1, 2024. 

(ECF No. 146.) 

On April 11, 2024, Defendants filed a timely opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to sanctions. 

(ECF No. 151.) Plaintiff filed a reply on April 15, 2024. (ECF No. 152.) 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a discovery and scheduling order

controls the course of litigation unless the Court subsequently alters the original order. Fed R.

Civ. P. 16(d). 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 that 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. S. Cal. 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).

“Good cause may be found to exist where the moving party shows that it diligently

assisted the court with creating a workable scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the

scheduling order’s deadlines due to matters that could not have reasonably been foreseen at the

time of the issuance of the scheduling order, and that it was diligent in seeking an amendment

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 154 Filed 04/23/24 Page 3 of 5
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

once it became apparent that the party could not comply with the scheduling order.” Kuschner

Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 684, 687 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

III.

DISCUSSION

By way of exhibit to Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ opposition to his motion to compel 

(ECF No. 90), Plaintiff seeks an extension of the discovery deadline in order to ascertain the 

identifies of the “Doe” Defendants. (ECF No. 139.) 

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion by arguing there is no showing of good cause and 

they will be prejudiced if the discovery deadline is extended. (ECF No. 143.) 

The discovery deadline expired on February 6, 2024. (ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff’s motion 

to modify the discovery deadline was filed prior to the discovery deadline, i.e., January 26, 2024. 

(ECF No. 139.) Although Plaintiff is required to follow all applicable rules and order, Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se and he is incarcerated, which affects his ability to draft discovery with the 

precision of an attorney. It also entitles him to some additional leniency. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting “Supreme Court precedent that instructs federal 

courts to liberally construe the “inartful pleading” of pro se litigants”); Draper v. Coombs, 792 

F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that pro se litigants should be treated with great leniency 

when evaluating compliance with the technical rules of civil procedure). 

In this instance, given that Plaintiff submitted his motion for an extension of time prior to 

the discovery deadline, and he has been diligent in propounding discovery to ascertain the identity 

of the Doe Defendants, the Court does finds good cause to extend the deadline to amend the 

complaint, limited to the identity of the Doe Defendants. Indeed, on January 29, 2024, the Court 

granted Plaintiff’s prior motion to compel and compelled Defendants to provide the Daily 

Activity Reports for May 11, 2020, and any complaints and grievances filed against Defendants 

during the past 10 years. (ECF No. 140.) In his January 22, 2024 motion to compel, Plaintiff 

submits that he cannot properly identify the Doe Defendants with only the names on the sign-in 

sheets and he seeks further discovery by photograph identification of the officers working on May 

11, 2020. The Court finds that any prejudice to Defendants to be minimal and will be offset by an 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 154 Filed 04/23/24 Page 4 of 5
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

extension of the correlating dispositive motion deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to 

modify the discovery and scheduling order shall be granted. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order is granted;

2. The discovery deadline is extended to June 25, 2024; and

3. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to August 22, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 154 Filed 04/23/24 Page 5 of 5