Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05422/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05422-11/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

BENNY TAPIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOODS, GLAZIER, FISCHER, 

YARBOROUGH, TERHUNE, 

AND ALAMEIDA,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-05422-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC TRIAL

CONFIRMATION HEARING

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE

MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A

DISPOSITIVE MOTION WITHIN FIFTEEN

DAYS

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE FROM

NOVEMBER 5, 2007, TO MARCH 3, 2008,

AND REQUIRING COUNSEL TO CONFIRM

TRIAL DATE OF MARCH 3, 2008, WITHIN

THREE BUSINESS DAYS 

I. Modification of Scheduling Order

A telephonic trial confirmation hearing was held in this action on September 27, 2007, at

9:00 a.m. During the hearing, plaintiff requested that discovery be re-opened, and in their pretrial

statement, defendants indicated they seek to file a dispositive motion on the grounds that this action

is barred by the statute of limitation and plaintiff does not have a protected liberty interest in

avoiding SHU confinement. The deadline for the completion of all discovery was April 21, 2005,

and the deadline to file pretrial dispositive motions was June 21, 2005. Modification of a scheduling

order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing

of due diligence, Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir.

2002). This standard applies equally to plaintiff and defendants. As the Court informed plaintiff 

///

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 91 Filed 09/27/07 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 Counsel may reach the staff attorney by contacting the chambers of the undersigned at (559) 499-5680. 1

2

during the hearing, plaintiff’s verbal request to re-open discovery was not supported by a showing

of good cause.

The Court also stated that defendants may file their dispositive motion they referenced in

their pretrial statement if they address the waiver issue and show good cause with the motion. Upon

further consideration following the hearing, defendants’ counsel shall not file his pretrial dispositive

motion along with a showing of good cause as indicated by the Court. Rather, defendants shall first

file a motion seeking leave to modify the scheduling order and file a late dispositive motion. The

motion must address the waiver issue and must make a showing of good cause. Plaintiff has a right

to oppose the motion seeking leave to modify the scheduling order. Local Rule 78-230(m). 

If the Court finds defendants have met their burden to modify the scheduling order, the Court

will at that time set a deadline by which to file the dispositive motion. The Court deems this to be

a better procedure as it will save defendants from expending resources on their dispositive motion

unless and until the Court agrees to hear the motion, and will save plaintiff from having to oppose

a motion to dismiss on the merits that the Court might in the end decline to consider at all.

II. Continuance of Trial Date

Defendants’ counsel stated that a conflict has arisen with respect to the defense of defendant

Yarborough. Counsel represented that defendant Yarborough recently filed suit against Department

of Corrections staff members and those members are being defended by the Attorney General’s

Office. Counsel represented that attorney Mark Harris is in the process ofsubstituting in as counsel

for defendant Yarborough. As a result of this recent conflict, defendants requested that jury trial be

continued. As stated by the Court, defendants have shown good cause for a continuance, there is an

actual conflict given these events, and there was no undue delay in informing the Court of the

conflict. Therefore, jury trial was continued during the hearing from November 5, 2007, to March

3, 2008, at 8:30 a.m. 

Defendants’ counsel has three business days within which to inform the staff attorney

assigned to this case whether this date is satisfactory to Mr. Harris. If the date is satisfactory, an 1

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 91 Filed 09/27/07 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

Amended Pretrial Order will be issued. If the date is not satisfactory, the Court will set a telephonic

trial setting hearing once Mr. Harris has substituted in as counsel for defendant Yarborough. The

Court trusts that this will occur in short order.

III. Motion to Dismiss Defendant Terhune

Defendants have withdrawn their motion to dismiss defendant Terhune from this action based

on his terminal illness.

IV. Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Glazier

Any opposition to counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant Glazier is due

September 27, 2007. Local Rule 78-230(m). The Court will issue a ruling in due course once the

motion has been deemed submitted. Id.

V. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants have fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order within which

to file their motion seeking leave to modify the scheduling order and file a dispositive

motion;

2. Defendants’ motion must address the issue of waiver raised by the Court in the

Pretrial Order and must demonstrate good cause;

3. Jury trial is continued from November 5, 2007, to March 3, 2008, at 8:30 a.m.

pending confirmation that attorney Mark Harris is available for trial; and

4. Defendants’ counsel shall notify the Court within three (3) calendar days whether

the date of March 3, 2008, is satisfactory to attorney Mark Harris.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05422-LJO -SMS Document 91 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3