Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01350/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01350-32/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

AERITH NATALIA ASORA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UGWUEZE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER FOLLOWING JOINT STATUS 

REPORT FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2024

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2024, District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston issued a minute order 

continuing the previously set trial in this matter to August 26, 2025. (See Doc. 94.) The minute 

order further states: “Defendants also request that the Court re-open discovery as to how 

Plaintiff’s surgeries might impact damages” and “inquire whether the Court would ‘entertain’ 

further dispositive motion practice. ... Those discovery and scheduling matters are remanded to 

the assigned magistrate judge for consideration, who may require the filing of a formal motion.” 

(Id.) 

On October 2, 2024, the undersigned directed the parties to file a joint status report within 

45 days; specifically, the parties were directed to:

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 97 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 6
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

set forth their positions concerning the need for additional, limited 

discovery concerning Plaintiff’s possible knee surgery. The parties 

shall include all available information concerning the timing of 

upcoming surgical procedures that may inform the Court’s decision 

regarding potential limited discovery deadlines. Further, the parties 

shall set forth their positions concerning the request that the Court 

allow for the filing of motions for summary judgment. Any party 

seeking to file a motion for summary judgment shall explain the basis 

for the request at this stage of the proceedings and shall provide legal 

authority in support of such a request.

(See Doc. 95.) 

On November 14, 2024, the parties filed their joint status report. (Doc. 96.) Defendants 

request permission to obtain additional medical documentation concerning Plaintiff’s knee (id. at 

1-2) and to file a motion for summary judgment (id. at 2-3). The Court construes Defendants’ 

requests as a motion for additional discovery and a motion for permission to file a motion for 

summary judgment. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on March 5, 2021, setting the 

deadline for the completion of discovery for August 5, 2021, and the dispositive motion deadline 

for October 4, 2021. (Doc. 36.)1 Following the discovery cut-off deadline, no party filed a 

dispositive motion in this matter. Following unsuccessful settlement conference proceedings, in 

June 2023, the matter was then set for a pretrial conference and trial before District Judge 

Thurston. (Doc. 68.) 

Additional Discovery

Defendants seek additional discovery concerning Plaintiff’s knee. They note the additional 

medical records may lead to further discovery requests should there be a correlation between 

Plaintiff’s knee and spinal conditions, and the potential need for depositions of Drs. Ramberg and 

Samar. Plaintiff does not object to the additional discovery.

Courts consider the following factors when ruling on a motion to reopen discovery: (1) 

whether trial is imminent, (2) whether the request is opposed, (3) whether the non-moving party 

would be prejudiced, (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the 

1 On September 1, 2021, the Court issued its order denying Plaintiff’s request to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. 

40.) Defendants did not seek to modify the scheduling order.

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 97 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 6
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

guidelines established by the court, (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in 

light of the time allowed for discovery, and (6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to 

relevant evidence. City of Pomona v. SQM North American Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 

2017); Coleman v. Spearman, No. 2:19-cv-00369 AC, 2024 WL 3758805, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 

12, 2024) (same). 

Here, trial is no longer imminent, Plaintiff does not oppose the request and would not be 

prejudiced by the requested discovery, Defendant was apparently diligent in obtaining other 

relevant discovery, the foreseeability of the need for this additional and limited discovery appears 

not to have been known prior to the close of discovery, and the likelihood the requested discovery 

will lead to relevant evidence appears significant. City of Pomona, 866 F.3d at 1066. Therefore, 

considering the relevant factors, the Court will reopen discovery limited to the issue of Plaintiff’s 

knee injury and condition and as described in the parties’ joint status report. Defendants shall be 

directed to complete their limited discovery no later than April 21, 2025. 

Summary Judgment

Defendants seek the Court’s leave to file a motion for summary judgment concerning 

Plaintiff’s previous suit filed in the Kings County Superior Court. They contend they lacked 

knowledge of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit involving all but one of the Defendants named in this action 

and have defended this “case as one of questionable liability and causation.” Defendants assert 

they lacked sufficient time “to prepare a last-minute summary judgment” motion due to the 

preparation required for a mediation and in advance of the trial previously set to commence on 

November 13, 2024. They state they now have sufficient time within which to prepare such a 

motion given the current August 2025 trial date. 

Parties are permitted to seek modification of a scheduling order to allow a late motion. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Modification of a pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good 

cause. Id. “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of 

the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 

1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 97 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 6
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

1992)). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the 

motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

Additionally, for good cause, a court may extend the time for filing a motion “after the 

time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(b)(1)(B). In determining whether delay is due to excusable neglect, the court is to consider the 

danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, the length of delay and impact upon the 

proceedings, the reason for the delay including whether it was within the reasonable control of the 

moving party, and whether the movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. 

Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 

853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit has found a lack of good cause where a party was on 

notice of relevant factual information but instead waited until later to seek relief with the Court. 

Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC, 88 F.4th 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 2023). 

In their pretrial statement submitted July 8, 2024, in advance of the July 15, 2024, pretrial 

conference, Defendants asserted as follows:

Defendants recently learned that Plaintiff filed suit for nearly 

identical claims of deliberate indifference against Defendants 

Ugwueze, Kokor, Igbinosa, Hashemi, and Arrieta among others in 

the Superior Court of California, County of Kings. The case was 

entitled Nathaniel Gann v. Ugweze, case number 17C-0341. The 

Superior Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer on the grounds that 

Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies. As the Plaintiff’s 

current lawsuit was served while the undersigned’s office was in the 

initial stages of working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic 

and we were simply unable to check for other cases at the time as 

quickly as we were now. This case was defended by a Deputy 

Attorney General in the Correctional Law Section while the

undersigned is part of the Torts and Condemnation Section; thus we 

would not meet with each other on a routine basis, let alone during 

the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Due to judgment being entered against Plaintiff on nearly identical 

claims, Defendants would request leave to file to raise a defense of 

res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.

(Doc. 84 at 9.) Following the pretrial conference, Judge Thurston issued a Pretrial Order directing 

Defendants to “file their motion for judgment on the basis of res judicata, if at all, no later than 

July 26, 2024.” (See Doc. 88 at 14, emphasis in original.) In the Amended Pretrial Order filed 

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 97 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 6
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 5

August 21, 2024, Judge Thurston noted: “Despite the Court setting a deadline of July 26, 2024 for 

Defendants to file a motion to dismiss based upon newly discovered information, they did not do 

so.” (Doc. 91 at 19.) 

First, the docket reveals Plaintiff disclosed the suit filed in the Kings County Superior 

Court in both her original and first amended complaints. (Doc 1 at 3; Doc. 14 at 3.) Other than 

referencing limitations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including an “inability to check for 

other cases” quickly, Defendants fail to explain why they were unable to file a motion for 

summary judgment before the October 4, 2021, deadline, or why, according to their July 8, 2024, 

pretrial statement, they had only “recently learned” of the Kings County Superior Court action. 

Any limitations imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic “to check for other cases” have long since 

resolved. More significantly, Defendants fail to explain how they only “recently learned” in July 

of this year of the state court action when Plaintiff’s original and first amended complaints 

include reference to the title and case number for the action filed in the Kings County Superior 

Court.

Next, the undersigned notes that Judge Thurston provided Defendants with a deadline 

within which to file a motion for judgment based on res judicata, but Defendants elected not to do 

so. Defendants now seek permission to file a summary judgment motion, more than three years 

after the original deadline for doing so. Given the fact Plaintiff disclosed the state court filing in 

both her original and first amended complaints, and the significant passage of time, Plaintiff 

would likely be prejudiced were the Court to permit such a late filing by Defendants. 

Additionally, the undersigned notes that despite expressly directing Defendants to provide 

legal authority in support of any request to file a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 95 at 2), 

Defendants failed to do so. 

To the extent Defendants contend permitting them to file a motion for summary judgment 

now “could save time and resources for the Court and the parties,” the Court disagrees. “Judicial 

resources are best conserved when the parties comply with the Court’s scheduling orders and 

raise all applicable grounds for dismissal or judgment as a matter of law in a timely filed motion.” 

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 97 Filed 11/25/24 Page 5 of 6
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 6

Zavala v. Chrones, No. 1:09-cv-01352-BAM-PC, 2012 WL 3861254, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 

2012). Defendants have had ample time to resolve any issue surrounding Plaintiff’s earlier state 

court action. The period between the lifting of any relevant limitations imposed by the COVID-19 

pandemic that would affect defense counsel’s ability to follow up on Plaintiff’s disclosure of the 

state court action, coupled with the fact Defendants elected not to file any motion on or before 

July 26, 2024, as premitted by Judge Thurston, weigh against allowing Defendants to file a 

summary judgment motion at this late stage of the proceedings. 

In sum, Defendants did not act diligently and have failed to establish good cause for the 

instant request. Pioneer Inv. Services Co., 507 U.S. at 395; Kamal, 88 F.4th at 1277; Zivkovic, 

302 F.3d at 1087. Defendants’ request or motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment 

will be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. Defendants’ construed motion for additional discovery is GRANTED; 

2. Defendants SHALL complete the additional and limited discovery no later than April 

21, 2025; and

3. Defendants’ construed motion for permission to file a motion for summary judgment 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01350-JLT-CDB Document 97 Filed 11/25/24 Page 6 of 6