Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144-10/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 43) 

Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Martinez and Peterson for 

violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on April 1, 2024. (Doc. 37.) 

On September 3, 2024, Defendant Peterson filed a motion to compel discovery responses. (Doc. 

38.) 

On October 2, 2024, when Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the discovery motion, the Court issued its “Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions 

Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of NonOpposition” (OSC) (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff was directed to file a written response to the OSC within 

14 days. (Id. at 2.) 

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 44 Filed 11/01/24 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

On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant Peterson’s motion to 

compel.

1

(Doc. 41.) Defendant Peterson filed a reply on October 23, 2024. (Doc. 42.)

On October 30, 2024, Defendants Martinez and Peterson filed a Motion to Modify the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 43.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order 

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 

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 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.

Defendants request that the Court vacate the dispositive motion filing deadline and reset 

the deadline 90 days after the Court resolves Defendant Peterson’s pending motion to compel. 

(Doc. 43 at 3.) Defendants’ motion is accompanied by the Declaration of Krista-Denise 

Matsumura, counsel for Defendants. (Doc. 43-1.) Defense counsel states she has worked 

diligently to analyze and develop defenses, including reviewing all pertinent documents, 

propounding discovery, conducting Plaintiff’s deposition, and commencing preparation of a 

summary judgment motion. (Id., ¶ 3.) Counsel states Plaintiff has failed to respond to request 

number 4 in Defendant Peterson’s June 26, 2024, Request for Production of Documents, Set One. 

(Id., ¶ 4-5.) Thus, Defendant Peterson filed a motion to compel on September 3, 2024. (Id., ¶ 6.) 

Following the Court’s OSC, Plaintiff filed objections to the motion on October 15, 2024, 

and Defendants filed their reply on October 23, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 7-9.) As of October 30, 2024, 

Plaintiff has not responded to the outstanding discovery that “is not only relevant, but also 

necessary to the defense of the two Defendants.” (Id., ¶ 10.) Defense counsel notes the parties are 

presently awaiting the Court’s ruling on the pending motion to compel. (Id., ¶ 11.) Counsel states 

1 Plaintiff’s document is titled “Plaintiff is hereby objecting to the Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to 

participate in depositions as a witness for Defendant’s and against herself.” 

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 44 Filed 11/01/24 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

this is her first request to extend the dispositive motion filing deadline and that setting a new 

dispositive motion filing deadline 90 days after the Court’s ruling on the pending motion to 

compel will not prejudice Plaintiff as there are no other deadlines in this action. (Id., ¶ 12-14.) 

The Court finds Defendants have established good cause to modify the dispositive motion 

filing deadline and will grant the motion. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The Court will reset the 

dispositive motion deadline when it issues a ruling on Defendant Peterson’s pending motion to 

compel. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 43) is GRANTED; 

2. The deadline for filing a dispositive motion is VACATED; and

3. The Court will reset the dispositive motion deadline when resolving Defendant 

Peterson’s pending motion to compel.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 The motion to compel was deemed submitted with the filing of Defendants’ reply on October 23, 2024. 

See Local Rule 230(l). This Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation. The undersigned carries 

a heavy caseload, and delays are inevitable. The pending motion will be decided in due course.

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 44 Filed 11/01/24 Page 3 of 3