Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00633/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00633-6/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LESLIE JAMES JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A.Z. SCOTLAND, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-0633-TLN-EFB P (TEMP) 

MODIFIED DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 18, 2015, defendants filed a motion to 

modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order, which was issued on April 21, 2015. Pursuant to 

that Order, the period for conducting discovery concluded on September 18, 2015, and the date 

by which dispositive motions were to be filed was November 20, 2015. ECF No. 31. In their 

pending motion, defendants assert that, despite their diligence in timely propounding written 

discovery, they were unaware of additional medical records until plaintiff’s deposition, which 

was held just days before the discovery deadline. Because plaintiff has declined to give his 

consent for the release of those records, defendants must now issue subpoenas duces tecum to 

third-parties. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendants’ motion. 

 A party seeking leave of court to amend the schedule of a case must satisfy Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16(b)’s “good cause” standard. The good cause standard of Rule 16(b) focuses 

primarily on the diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for seeking modification, c.f. 

Case 2:12-cv-00633-TLN-DB Document 42 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011). 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). 

 Here, defendants have exercised due diligence. On July 25, 2015, defendants served 

interrogatories and requests for production of documents seeking, inter alia, information relating 

to plaintiff’s medical conditions. Goodwin Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A-B. Plaintiff’s responses did not 

describe or provide copies of documents related to medical care that he received following his 

release from prison, and defendants did not learn of plaintiff’s post-release medical needs or care 

until his September 16, 2015, deposition. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Due to plaintiff’s failure to provide this 

information until the eve of the discovery deadline, the court finds that defendants have shown 

good cause for a modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The discovery deadline is extended to April 29, 2016; 

2. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before June 29, 2016; and 

3. Pretrial conference and trial dates will be set, as appropriate, following adjudication of 

any dispositive motion, or the expiration of time for filing such a motion. 

DATED: April 7, 2016. 

Case 2:12-cv-00633-TLN-DB Document 42 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2