Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00064/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00064-2/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

MARK E. DORSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. MOORE, et al,

Defendant.

1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM (PC) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR LIMITED 

PURPOSE OF TAKING DEPOSITION AND 

FILING A SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE

(ECF No. 37)

Plaintiff Mark E. Dorsey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2016, Defendants 

B. Pease, C. Morelock, D. Moore, J. Martin and A. Cano filed a motion to compel interrogatory 

responses, and request for an extension of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. (ECF 

No. 30.) On April 20, 2016, Defendants filed an application for an extension of the discovery and 

dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 37.) The application is supported by a declaration of 

counsel. (Id. at 5-6.) 

Defendants note that their April 20, 2016 application seeks some of the same relief as 

their previous motion, but they filed it anyway in an abundance of caution. (ECF No. 37, p. 3

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 39 Filed 04/22/16 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

n. 1.) Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to respond to this application, but the Court finds no 

response is necessary, and that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the consideration of the 

application. Local Rule 230(l).

Defendants note that Plaintiff’s response to their motion to compel is overdue. By this 

Court’s order, issued in the interim between Defendants’ motion to compel and the current 

application, Plaintiff’s response to the motion is now due on or before May 9, 2016. (ECF No. 

38.) Defendants note that the motion to compel will not be resolved before the April 25, 2016 

discovery deadline in this matter. 

The motion to compel concerns Defendants’ first set of special interrogatories, served on 

Plaintiff on or about February 11, 2016.1 Defendants planned to take Plaintiff’s deposition after 

receiving and reviewing Plaintiff’s responses to that discovery. However, Defendants argue that 

Plaintiff did not fully respond to their discovery requests, and they were required to file a motion 

to compel. Now, Defendants must wait on the outcome of the motion to compel before deposing

Plaintiff, because they could receive additional information pertinent to the deposition if any part 

of their motion is granted. 

Also, Defendants argue that if any part of their motion to compel is granted and they 

receive additional discovery responses from Plaintiff, they may need to file an additional motion 

to compel based on those responses. Thus, Defendants request a sixty (60) day extension of the 

discovery deadline for the limited purposes of: (1) noticing and taking Plaintiff’s deposition, and 

(2) filing a second motion to compel, if necessary. 

Finally, Defendants note the dispositive motion deadline is July 5, 2016, but they argue 

that dispositive motions cannot be properly prepared until these discovery-related matters are 

resolved. Resolution of these matters may not occur before July 5, 2016. Therefore, Defendants

seek an appropriate extension of the dispositive motion deadline, sufficient to allow for the 

preparation of those motions after these discover matters are complete.

 

1

The Court notes that there appears to have been some initial delay by Defendants in 

seeking discovery from Plaintiff, but Defendants have been diligent since that discovery was 

served.

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 39 Filed 04/22/16 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

The Court finds Defendants have presented good cause for the requested extensions. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Defendants have propounded written discovery and filed a motion to compel

before the discovery deadline, but due to delays in resolving the motion to compel, the discovery 

deadline will pass before those matters are resolved. The Court takes no position on the merits of 

Defendants’ motion to compel at this time, but finds that the outcome of that motion may affect 

Defendants’ deposition of Plaintiff, and may affect whether Defendants will be required to file a 

second motion to compel. Furthermore, as Defendants argue, these discovery-related matters 

must be resolved before dispositive motions can be properly prepared and filed.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff=s application for a limited extension of the discovery deadline and the 

dispositive motion deadline (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED;

2. Defendants must depose Plaintiff, and file a second motion to compel, if 

necessary, within sixty (60) days of service of this Court’s order regarding Defendant’s first 

motion to compel (ECF No. 30); and 

3. The July 5, 2016 dispositive motion deadline set by the discovery and scheduling 

order in this matter, (ECF No. 19) is VACATED. The Court will re-set that deadline in a separate

order following its order ruling on the pending motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00064-DAD-BAM Document 39 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 3