Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00361/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00361-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18cv361-JLS-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYCHAL ANDRA REED,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv361-JLS-LL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

[ECF No. 136]

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Re-request of His Motion for Indefinite 

Postponement of Deposition [ECF No. 136] and Plaintiff’s Supporting Evidence for his 

Re-request to Postpone his Deposition Indefinitely [ECF No. 140]. The Court construes 

the two documents together as Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

April 23, 2020 Order (1) Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Indefinite Postponement of 

Deposition and (2) Resetting Deposition Date and Fact Discovery Cut-off [ECF No. 116]. 

Plaintiff argues that his deposition should be indefinitely postponed because

“contrary to defendants [sic] statements (ECF No. 123),” Plaintiff requested his legal 

property while he was in segregation housing on three separate occasions to no avail. ECF 

No. 136 at 1, 7, 9, 11. Plaintiff argues that his ignored requests and assignment to 

segregation housing are acts of retaliation and designed to hinder him from adequately 

litigating against Defendants. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff claims that when he receives his legal 

Case 3:18-cv-00361-JLS-DEB Document 141 Filed 05/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv361-JLS-LL

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

documents, he “needs ample time to review them after not having access to them for almost 

5 (five) months.” Id. at 2. In his “supporting evidence,” Plaintiff states that he was released 

from segregation housing on April 30, 2020 and “made to sign a property inventory 

document (CDCR 1083) without first given an opportunity to actually view his property 

items to see if in fact all his property was accounted for.” ECF No. 140 at 1–2, 6. Plaintiff 

further states that upon review, several of his items are missing, including all his legal 

documents pertaining to this case. Id. at 2, 4, 5. Plaintiff requested the return of his property 

on April 30 and May 1, 2020 before mailing this motion on May 2 or 3, 2020. Id. at 4, 5, 

7, 8. Plaintiff contends that he cannot adequately present the facts of his case in a deposition 

without his legal documents. Id at 2. He requests a copy of the docket sheet to attempt to 

request copies of his filings “so he can have deposition in the near future.” Id.

A district court may reconsider an order under either Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from 

judgment).1 See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration [pursuant to Rule 59(e)] is appropriate if the district 

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling 

law.” Id. at 1263. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) will be granted “only 

upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; 

or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); 

Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Under this 

district’s Local Rules, a party that files a motion for reconsideration of an order must set 

forth what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist, which did not 

exist, or were not shown, in the prior motion. CivLR 7.1.i. Reconsideration is an 

 

1 The use of the term “Rule” in this order refers to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

unless otherwise stated.

Case 3:18-cv-00361-JLS-DEB Document 141 Filed 05/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv361-JLS-LL

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

“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of 

judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation 

omitted). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented some new evidence that was not 

available at the time of the original motion.2 Specifically, Plaintiff has been released from 

segregation housing and his property returned, but the legal documents are missing despite 

being requested. Plaintiff seeks an indefinite postponement of his deposition, which is 

currently set for May 27, 2020. The Court had set the deposition date based on the 

assurance by Defendants that Plaintiff would be granted access to his legal materials prior 

to the deposition if he requested them. ECF No. 134 at 2, 4. Therefore, the Court finds it 

appropriate to reconsider its order based on the newly discovered evidence. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Rule 16(b)'s '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 finds good cause to continue Plaintiff’s deposition for a brief period so 

that Plaintiff may obtain his legal documents prior to his deposition. The Court notes that 

Plaintiff requested his legal documents the day he was released from segregation housing 

 

2 On the other hand, some of Plaintiff’s “new” evidence was known to Plaintiff at the time 

of the original motion for indefinite postponement of his deposition but was not 

communicated to the Court in Plaintiff’s motion or reply. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, 

Defendants did not dispute that Plaintiff had requested his legal documents three times to 

no avail because Plaintiff did not disclose that he had done so. See ECF No. 123 at 2; 

see also ECF Nos. 116, 130. Instead, Plaintiff stated only that his legal documents had been 

confiscated when he entered segregation housing and there was no set date for his release 

or the return of his property. ECF No. 116 at 1. Plaintiff’s arguments regarding retaliation 

designed to prevent him from adequately litigating were presented in his original motion 

and are not new. See ECF Nos. 116 at 1; 130 at 1–2.

Case 3:18-cv-00361-JLS-DEB Document 141 Filed 05/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv361-JLS-LL

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

and the following day, and then he immediately filed the instant motion. It is possible that 

he has since received them. In the event he has not, the Court will continue the deposition 

for a brief period and provide a copy of the docket sheet. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 

IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and orders the 

following:

1. Plaintiff’s deposition will be continued from May 27, 2020 to a date no earlier 

than June 15, 2020 and no later than June 19, 2020.

2. Fact discovery cut-off will be continued from June 4, 2020 to June 19, 2020. 

3. All other deadlines and requirements remain as previously set. 

See ECF Nos. 98, 108.

4. The Office of the Clerk is DIRECTED to provide a copy of the docket sheet 

to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00361-JLS-DEB Document 141 Filed 05/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4