Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01928/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01928-10/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON GRAY, 

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-1928 GEB EFB P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 23, 2012, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to modify the

scheduling order to extend the time for disclosing his expert witness on the ground that he had

not yet received plaintiff’s medical records from the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation. Dckt. No. 56. On the same day, defendant opposed plaintiff’s request. Dckt.

No. 57. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s request should be denied for lack of diligence and

good cause because plaintiff “never even sought copies of his medical records until August 15,

2012, which was fourteen months after the filing of the operative complaint and on the original

deadline to disclose plaintiff’s experts.” See id. (also arguing that plaintiff’s request was based

on false statements). Defendant also asked that if the court granted plaintiff’s request, that the

deadline for defendant’s disclosure of experts be equally extended. Id. 

1

Case 2:10-cv-01928-TLN-EFB Document 61 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 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

On October 26, 2012, the court denied plaintiff’s request for lack of good cause, and

noted that plaintiff had “propose[d] an unworkable schedule in light of the existing deadline for

dispositive motions, the final pretrial conference, and the June 18, 2013 trial . . . .” Dckt. No. 58. 

The court also noted that plaintiff’s counsel’s request improperly referenced his client’s social

security number and directed the Clerk of the Court to remove those references from the docket. 

Finally, the court referred plaintiff’s counsel to Local Rule 140 (Privacy Concerns and

Redaction) and warned that he may be sanctioned if future filings do not comply with the court’s

Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”).

On November 2, 2012, plaintiff filed a second ex parte application to modify the

scheduling order to extend the time for disclosing his expert witnesses. Dckt. No. 59. The

request is nearly identical to the previous request, except that plaintiff states that he received the

requested medical records on October 31, 2012. Id. Plaintiff does not address the arguments

made by defendant in response to plaintiff’s initial ex parte request, nor does plaintiff address the

court’s concerns about how the proposed extension of time would affect other dates in the

schedule. 

Defendant opposed plaintiff’s second ex parte request on November 6, 2012, arguing that

like plaintiff’s first request, the instant request lacks good cause. Dckt. No. 60. Defendant also

requested that plaintiff’s counsel be sanctioned, arguing in part, that plaintiff’s request violates

Local Rules 140(a)(iv) and 303. Dckt. No. 60. Plaintiff did not file a reply or otherwise respond

to defendant’s request for sanctions. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 140(a)(iv), documents filed with the court shall not include dates

of birth. Both of plaintiff’s counsel’s requests to modify the scheduling order reference his

client’s date of birth See Dckt. No. 56-3 at 2, 4; 56-4 at 2, 4; 56-5 at 2, 4; 56-6 at 2; 59-2 at 2;

57-3 at 2; 57-4 at 2,4; 57-5 at 2. Therefore, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to redact these

2

Case 2:10-cv-01928-TLN-EFB Document 61 Filed 11/16/12 Page 2 of 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

references from the docket. 

Defendant, citing to Local Rule 303, which governs the procedure for obtaining

reconsideration of an order issued by a magistrate judge, argues that “[p]laintiff’s serial filings

constitute an abuse of process and are unfairly burdensome to defendant as well as this Court. 

Counsel for defendant was required to read plaintiff’s second application, word for word, to

determine if there were any different grounds for the requested relief, and was required to file

another opposition on shortened notice.” Dckt. No. 60 at 4. 

 The court will not sanction plaintiff’s counsel at this time but will again refer him to the

court’s Local Rules and warn him that he may be sanctioned if future filings do not comply. See

E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any

order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”). 

Plaintiff’s second ex parte application, which is nearly identical to the application that the

court previously denied, will also be denied for failure to demonstrate the requisite diligence and

good cause. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s November 2, 2012 ex parte application to modify the scheduling order

(Dckt. No. 59) is denied. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to redact the following references to plaintiff’s date of

birth: Dckt. No. 56-3 at 2, 4; 56-4 at 2, 4; 56-5 at 2, 4; 56-6 at 2; 59-2 at 2; 59-3 at 2; 59-4 at 2,4;

59-5 at 2. 

DATED: November 16, 2012.

3

Case 2:10-cv-01928-TLN-EFB Document 61 Filed 11/16/12 Page 3 of 3