Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00898/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00898-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICK EDDIE RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-00898-NODJ-SKO (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER 

(Doc. 50)

Plaintiff Erick Eddie Rodriguez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 17, 2023, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 48.) 

On January 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order, seeking an 

extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline. (Doc. 50.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants seek an extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline, presently set for 

March 18, 2024, to May 17, 2024. (Doc. 50 at 1.) The motion is supported by the declaration of 

Deputy Attorney General Molly Christ. (Id. at 6-7.) Counsel states in November 2023 she began 

efforts to identify and retain an expert concerning Plaintiff’s claims of arsenic in the water at 

Kern Valley State Prison. (Id. at 6, ¶ 2.) Counsel identified two potential expert witnesses in early 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 51 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 2
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

December 2023; however, neither was able to provide the services requested. (Id. at 6, ¶ 3.) 

Following Plaintiff’s deposition on December 5, 2023, defense counsel identified an available 

expert witness and began the process of contracting for the expert’s services. (Id. at 6, ¶¶ 4-5.) 

Counsel states that due to the number of hours anticipated for the expert’s record review 

and preparation of a report, coupled with his other professional obligations, the expert will require 

approximately sixty days to prepare a report. (Id. at 6, ¶ 6.) The expert’s report will be used to 

support a motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 6, ¶ 7.) Counsel indicates an extension of the 

dispositive motion filing deadline is necessary to accommodate the time required by the expert, as 

well as defense counsel’s time to prepare the motion for summary judgment following receipt of 

the expert’s report. (Id. at 6, ¶¶ 7-8.) Defense counsel states the motion is not brought for the 

purpose of delay or harassment and will not significantly impact the progress of this matter or 

unfairly prejudice Plaintiff because the case has not yet been set for trial and no other deadlines 

will be affected. (Id. at 6, ¶ 8.) Defendants contend good cause exists to extend the dispositive 

motion deadline to May 17, 2024. (Id. at 4-5.) 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (Doc. 50) is 

GRANTED; and

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is modified to extend the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions from March 18, 2024, to May 17, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 51 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 2