Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01862/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01862-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORIANO MILLARE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CDCR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-1862 DC CSK P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a former prisoner, is proceeding without counsel with this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel and to 

extend the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 39.) Also pending is defendants’ motion to extend the 

discovery deadline. (ECF No. 41.) For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

denied and the motions to extend the discovery deadline are granted. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

A. Plaintiff’s Argument in Support of Motion to Compel

Plaintiff alleges that on September 8, 2024, plaintiff served defendants with one request

for production of documents, three sets of interrogatories and three sets of requests for 

admissions. (ECF No. 39 at 1-2.) On September 17, 2024, plaintiff transferred from the 

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California to GEO Reentry in San Francisco, 

California. (Id. at 2.) During the transfer, plaintiff lost the Discovery and Scheduling Order 

Case 2:22-cv-01862-DC-CSK Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 4
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

issued in this case. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that as of October 25, 2024, he had received no 

response from defendants to his discovery requests served on September 8, 2024. (Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff alleges that on October 25, 2024, plaintiff re-mailed his discovery requests to defendants. 

(Id. at 4.) 

In the motion to compel, plaintiff requests that the Court order defendants to respond to 

plaintiff’s discovery requests, that plaintiff be provided with a copy of the Discovery and 

Scheduling order and for issuance of any order deemed suitable and just. (Id.)

B. Discussion

In their opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff’s motion to compel should be denied 

because they served plaintiff with timely responses to his discovery requests. (ECF No. 40.) 

Defendants observe that the Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed August 1, 2024, provides that 

responses to written discovery requests are due forty-five days after the request is served. (See

ECF No. 36 at 5.) Defendants state that plaintiff first served his discovery requests on September 

8, 2024. (ECF No. 40-1 at 2.) Forty-five days from September 8, 2024 was Wednesday, October 

23, 2024. In their opposition, defendants correctly observe that under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 6(d), three additional days are added after the date the discovery responses would 

otherwise be due because service is by mail, moving the due date of their responses to plaintiff’s 

discovery requests to October 26, 2024. In their opposition, defendants also correctly observe 

that because October 26, 2024 was a Saturday, the due date for their responses was the next 

available business day, Monday, October 28, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Defendants 

state that they timely served plaintiff with their discovery responses on Monday, October 28, 

2024. (ECF No. 40-1 at 2.)

For the reasons discussed above, this Court finds that defendants timely served plaintiff 

with responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests served on September 8, 2024. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. This Court also observes that on or around November 8, 

2024, defendants provided plaintiff with a copy of the Discovery and Scheduling Order filed 

August 1, 2024. (ECF No. 40-1 at 2.) For this reason, plaintiff’s request that the Court provide 

him with a copy of the Discovery and Scheduling order is denied as unnecessary.

Case 2:22-cv-01862-DC-CSK Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 4
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

II. MOTIONS TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE

A. Legal Standard

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.

B. Discussion

The discovery deadline was November 29, 2024 and the dispositive motion deadline is 

February 21, 2025. (ECF No. 36 at 5-6.)

In the motion to extend the discovery deadline, filed November 26, 2024, defendants 

request that the discovery deadline be extended by 60 days. (ECF No. 41 at 3.) The grounds of 

this request are that defendants have been unable to depose plaintiff prior to the discovery 

deadline. (Id. at 3.) On October 9, 2024, defendants initially noticed plaintiff’s deposition for 

November 13, 2024. (ECF No. 41-1 at 1.) Defendants’ notice of deposition stated that the 

deposition would take place at the Office of the Attorney General in San Francisco, California. 

(ECF No. 41-2 at 2.) On October 28, 2024, defendants received a letter from plaintiff stating that 

plaintiff was currently situated at a re-entry housing facility and that defendants needed to seek 

approval from facility staff for plaintiff to attend the deposition. (ECF No. 41-1 at 2.) Between 

October 28, 2024 and November 21, 2024, defense counsel attempted to contact the facility staff 

multiple times to seek approval for and schedule plaintiff’s deposition but received no answer. 

(Id. at 2.) On November 22, 2024, defense counsel was informed that defendants must coordinate 

with plaintiff’s Parole Agent Supervisor to schedule the deposition and to have plaintiff served 

with the notice of deposition. (Id.) Defense counsel is now in contact with plaintiff’s Parole 

Agent Supervisor and intends to schedule plaintiff’s deposition before serving plaintiff with a 

notice of deposition. (Id.) Defendants now intend to arrange plaintiff’s deposition through this 

process, but need additional time to arrange, prepare and complete the deposition. (Id.) For these 

Case 2:22-cv-01862-DC-CSK Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

reasons, defendants request that the Court extend the discovery deadline by 60 days. (Id.) This 

will allow sufficient time for defendants to complete discovery and determine if this case may be 

resolved through summary judgment. (Id.)

This Court finds that defendants have shown good cause to extend the discovery deadline 

by 60 days so that defendants may take plaintiff’s deposition. Accordingly, defendants’ motion 

to extend the discovery deadline by 60 days so that they may take plaintiff’s deposition is granted.

Plaintiff requests that the discovery deadline be extended by 45 days. (ECF No. 39 at 4.) 

Although plaintiff does not explain the specific grounds for this request, it appears that the 

extension is sought so that plaintiff may file a motion to compel, if necessary, regarding the 

discovery requests initially served on defendants on September 8, 2024. Good cause appearing, 

plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order to file a motion to compel regarding 

the discovery requests served on defendants on September 8, 2024. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is denied;

2. The motions to extend the discovery deadline (ECF Nos. 39, 41) are granted.

3. Defendants are granted until January 28, 2025 to depose plaintiff;

4. Plaintiff may file a motion to compel regarding the discovery requests served on 

defendants on September 8, 2024 on or before forty-five days from the date of this order; and

5. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to May 1, 2025. 

Dated: December 4, 2024

Mil1862.com

2

Case 2:22-cv-01862-DC-CSK Document 42 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 4