Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01391-22/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

DANIEL G. VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WINFRED KOKOR,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01391 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER IN PART

(Document 84)

Plaintiff Daniel G. Valencia (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in 

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint, which states a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Kokor

and Sundaram. 

Discovery opened as to Defendant Kokor on February 17, 2016. Defendant Sundaram’s 

February 16, 2016, motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) is pending.

On May 9, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order, 

seeking an extension of the May 17, 2016, deadline to file motions based on exhaustion. The Court 

deems the motion suitable for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

DISCUSSION

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of 

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 85 Filed 05/12/16 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

the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply 

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for 

seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 

F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Here, Defendants seek an extension of the May 17, 2016, deadline for filing motions based 

on exhaustion to September 14, 2016, the same day as the dispositive motion deadline. Defendant 

Kokor served Plaintiff with exhaustion-based discovery, but Plaintiff has not yet provided complete 

responses and would not stipulate to extend the exhaustion deadline. Defendant states that an 

extension to September 14, 2016, is necessary to allow review of Plaintiff’s late responses, and to 

schedule Plaintiff’s deposition, if necessary to discuss exhaustion issues.

 The Court finds good cause to extend the deadline but will not extend it to September 14, 

2016, given the Court’s preference to decide exhaustion issues as soon as possible. Albino v. Baca, 

747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court will GRANT an extension to July 17, 2016, which 

should provide sufficient time to review exhaustion discovery and file a motion, especially since 

exhaustion-based discovery has already been served on Plaintiff and he is in the process of 

responding. 

The Court declines Defendants’ suggestion to impose evidentiary sanctions at this time. 

From counsel’s declaration, it appears that Plaintiff has been attempting to obtain necessary 

documentation, but has been unable to do so. Doering Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01391-LJO-MJS Document 85 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2