Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01255/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01255-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMMANUEL BULL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN A. K. SCRIBNER,

et al.,

Defendants. 

_________________________/

1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING SIXTY-DAY EXTENSION

OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO

PLAINTIFF’S CURRENT DISCOVERY

REQUESTS

(Doc. 66.)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY

DISCOVERY/SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 68.)

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR ALL

PARTIES TO THIS ACTION

New Discovery Cut-Off Date: 11/29/2012

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 01/29/2013

I. BACKGROUND

Emmanuel Bull (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

October 3, 2005. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint, filed on

February 1, 2008, against defendants Brown and Rivera (“Defendants”) for excessive force in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 18.)

1

Case 1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA Document 69 Filed 07/31/12 Page 1 of 4
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

On January 19, 2012, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order establishing

deadlines of September 19, 2012 for completion of discovery and November 29, 2012 for the

parties to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 52.) This case is presently in the discovery

phase. 

On July 16, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to stay the discovery deadline or, in the

alternative, to extend time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s current discovery requests. 

(Doc. 66.) On July 27, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery/Scheduling

Order. (Doc. 68.) Defendants’ motions are now before the Court.

II. MOTION FOR STAY OR EXTENSION OF TIME

Defendants request a stay of the discovery deadline, relieving them of their obligation to

respond to Plaintiff’s current discovery requests until the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. In the alternative, Defendants request an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s

pending discovery requests. Defendants argue that the motion should be granted because (1)

the information Plaintiff seeks in his current discovery requests is irrelevant to the grounds on

which Defendants base their motion to dismiss, and (2) the expenditure of resources required to

respond to current discovery requests will be needless if the Court grants the pending motion to

dismiss. 

Defendants assert that on June 21, 2012, Plaintiff served requests for production of

documents and things on Defendants, and Defendants’ responses are due on August 6, 2012. 

Defendants also note that their deadline for taking Plaintiff’s deposition is fast approaching.

Defendants argue that discovery should be stayed, or an extension of time should be granted,

because the Court does not require additional information to decide the motion to dismiss and

Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the stay. Defendants argue that if the motion to dismiss is

granted, Defendants would be relieved of the burden and expense of the discovery process, and

Plaintiff would have the opportunity to focus his discovery on any surviving claims, thus

limiting time and expense for all parties.

2

Case 1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA Document 69 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 4
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

Defendants have shown good cause for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s

current discovery requests. Therefore, Defendants shall be granted sixty days from the date of

service of this order in which to respond to all of Plaintiff’s current discovery requests.

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants also request that the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines of the

Discovery/Scheduling Order of January 19, 2012 be vacated, and that the deadlines be reset, if

necessary, after the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. 

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

16(b). Defendants argue that if their motion to dismiss is granted, the expenditure of resources

required to conduct discovery, take Plaintiff’s deposition, and prepare a motion for summary

judgment will be unnecessary. Here, Defendants have shown good cause to extend the

discovery and dispositive motions deadlines for all parties to this action. The Court is required 

to construe and administer the Federal Rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to modify

the Discovery/Scheduling Order shall be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time until sixty days from the date of

service of this order in which to respond to all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests

served upon Defendants on or before the date of service of this order;

2. Defendants’ motion to modify the Court's Discovery/Scheduling Order is

GRANTED;

3. The discovery and dispositive motions deadlines are extended for all parties to

this action;

4. The deadline for the completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to

compel, is extended from September 19, 2012 to November 29, 2012;

3

Case 1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA Document 69 Filed 07/31/12 Page 3 of 4
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. The deadline for the parties to file and serve pretrial dispositive motions is

extended from November 29, 2012 to January 29, 2013; and

6. All other provisions of the Court's January 19, 2012 Discovery/Scheduling Order

remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 30, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA Document 69 Filed 07/31/12 Page 4 of 4