Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01256/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01256-3/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

MICHAEL WITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SOLIS, et al.,

Defendants.

1:12-cv-01256-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY 

DISCOVERY & SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 34)

NINETY (90) DAY DISCOVERY DEADLINE

ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAY 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE 

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendant Solis on 

First Amendment retaliation and state law conversion claims. (ECF Nos. 17 & 18.)

The dispositive motion deadline in this case was July 9, 2015. (ECF No. 26.) On 

July 9, Defendant moved to extend the dispositive motion deadline until August 28, 

2015, claiming the extension was necessary because of defense counsel’s medical 

issues of some months longstanding. (ECF Nos. 34 & 34-1.) 

Plaintiff opposed the motion on July 30, 2015, arguing that Defense counsel had 

waited until the last minute to “ask the Court for 50 additional days for reasons she was 

aware of months ago.” (ECF No. 35, at 1.) Plaintiff requested that the Court either deny 

Case 1:12-cv-01256-AWI-MJS Document 36 Filed 08/13/15 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

the motion to modify the scheduling order or grant it and reopen discovery. Plaintiff 

observed that the Court had denied his previous requests to modify the scheduling order 

to allow time for discovery responses (ECF Nos. 31 & 33), and argued, persuasively, 

that if the Court had been apprised of Defense counsel’s medical problems in a timelier 

manner, it likely would have been more receptive to Plaintiff’s requests. (ECF No. 35, at 

1.) Defendant did not file a reply or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s opposition.

Plaintiff’s point is well taken. Local Rule 144(d) provides that “Counsel shall seek 

to obtain a necessary extension from the Court ... as soon as the need for an extension 

becomes apparent. Requests for Court approved extensions brought on the required 

filing date for the... document are looked upon with disfavor.” Here, Defense counsel 

acknowledges she has known about her health problems for months, yet she filed her 

motion for an extension of time to file dispositive motions on the date dispositive motions

were due.

Moreover, it does not appear that either party feels he or she will be prejudiced by 

modifying the scheduling order to extend longstanding deadlines in the case. Therefore, 

in light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s pro se status, and his underestimation of the time 

needed to obtain meaningful discovery from Defendant, the Court will reopen the 

discovery period for an additional ninety (90) days from the date of service of this order. 

Plaintiff shall submit a third set of interrogatories to Defendant rather than rely on the set 

sent earlier. 

In addition, the Court will extend the dispositive motion deadline for an additional 

one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of service of this order in light of Defense 

counsel’s ongoing medical concerns.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s July 9, 2015 motion to modify the discovery and scheduling 

order (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED;

2. The discovery period is REOPENED for a period of ninety (90) days from 

the date of service of this order; and 

Case 1:12-cv-01256-AWI-MJS Document 36 Filed 08/13/15 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

3. The dispositive motion deadline is EXTENDED for one hundred twenty 

(120) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01256-AWI-MJS Document 36 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 3