Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00391/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00391-1/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

PAUL ERIC PARIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

IKWINDER SINGH,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00391-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(ECF No. 25)

AUGUST 9, 2016 DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

DEADLINE

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

civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Singh for inadequate medical care 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On July 30, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order, setting June 

9, 2016 as the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 22.) On June 8, 2016, Defendant 

filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the dispositive motion deadline to 

August 9, 2016. (ECF No. 25.) Defense counsel explains that he recently was 

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 27 Filed 07/13/16 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

27

28

2

reassigned several additional matters due to the death of one deputy attorney general 

and the retirement of another. One of these matters was set to begin trial July 11, 2016. 

These reassignments prevented counsel from timely filing a motion for summary 

judgment in this action.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff states that defense counsel 

informed Plaintiff at the close of Plaintiff’s deposition that Plaintiff would receive a 

“response report” of the deposition and that the parties thereafter would “join discovery 

plans.” Plaintiff received no further follow up from defense counsel, the discovery 

deadline expired, and the deadline for “joining discovery” also passed. He states that he 

seeks to introduce competent evidence and therefore asks that Defendant’s motion be 

denied or that he be permitted to conduct discovery to prepare an opposition.

Defendant has presented good cause for an extension of time. Plaintiff’s 

opposition presents no grounds for denying an extension of time. The motion will be 

granted.

The Court is unable to discern from Plaintiff’s filing the nature of the parties’ 

discovery dispute. To the extent Plaintiff seeks an extension of the discovery deadline, 

he may file a motion seeking same. Such a motion must be supported by a showing of 

good cause and that Plaintiff has pursued discovery with diligence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). If 

and when Defendant files a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may move to have 

the Court defer consideration of such motion until Plaintiff has had an opportunity to 

pursue discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). However, Plaintiff bears the burden of 

specifically identifying the relevant information he seeks, demonstrating that the 

evidence sought actually exists, and explaining how or why it would prevent summary 

judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(citation omitted); Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2011); Tatum v. 

City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006). Such a 

request is premature at this stage of the proceedings, given that Defendant has yet to 

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 27 Filed 07/13/16 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

27

28

3

file a motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff therefore cannot know what evidence 

may be necessary to defeat it. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order is HEREBY GRANTED. (ECF No. 25.) The deadline for filing 

dispositive motions is extended to and including August 9, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 27 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 3