Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01297-10/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

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

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael Vincent Cisneros (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Neubarth for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical 

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On October 1, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, which set the 

deadline to complete discovery as June 1, 2014. (ECF No. 23.)

On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of all deadlines in this 

matter. (ECF No. 29.) On January 3, 2014, the Court denied the motion, but informed Plaintiff that 

he could renew his motion in the future if, despite his diligence, he was unable to meet a particular 

deadline in the Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 30.) 

MICHAEL VINCENT CISNEROS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. M. DHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

WRITTEN DEPOSITION

(ECF No. 41)

Case 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM Document 46 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 3
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

On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting leave to conduct a written 

deposition of Defendant Neubarth pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31. Plaintiff contends 

that he discovered the availability of a written deposition on July 30, 2014. He has submitted a 

proposed set of twelve (12) deposition questions. (ECF No. 41.) 

Defendant Neubarth did not file an opposition and the motion is deemed submitted. Local 

Rule 230(l).

II. Motion for Written Deposition

Although Plaintiff seeks leave to take the deposition of Defendant Neubarth by written 

question, the deadline to complete all discovery expired on June 1, 2014. As such, Plaintiff must 

obtain a modification of the Discovery and Scheduling Order before he can depose Defendant 

Neubarth by any means. 

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the 

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be 

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the 

inquiry should end. Id.

Plaintiff contends that he discovered he could submit written deposition questions on July 30, 

2014. However, Plaintiff does not explain how he discovered this information or why he was unable 

to discover this information prior to the expiration of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff also does not 

explain why he could not obtain answers to his questions by written interrogatories directed to 

Defendant Neubarth before the discovery deadline. According to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff served 

Defendant Neubarth with interrogatories on October 23, 2013. (ECF No. 27.) As Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated diligence, the Court does not find good cause to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 

Order to allow for a written deposition of Defendant Neubarth.

///

Case 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM Document 46 Filed 08/27/14 Page 2 of 3
3

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

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s motion for written deposition, filed on August 4, 2014, is 

HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01297-LJO-BAM Document 46 Filed 08/27/14 Page 3 of 3