Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01599-13/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

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

MATTHEW JAMES GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-01599-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE MAY 5, 

2016 ORDER LIFTING STAY OF 

DISCOVERY

(ECF No. 80)

Responses to Pl.’s 1st Requests for 

Production Due: July 19, 2016 

Plaintiff Matthew James Griffin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for excessive force and for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against 

Defendants Johnson, Gonzales, Valdez, Munoz, Sexton, Ross, Thor, Doe, Kul, Busch, 

Bell, and Smith.

On March 11, 2016, Defendants filed a motion modify the Court’s May 5, 2016 

order lifting the stay of discovery in this matter. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff has not 

responded to this motion, but the Court finds no response necessary, and that Plaintiff 

will not be prejudiced by the consideration of Defendants’ motion. Local Rule 230(l).

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 81 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court’s May 5, 2016 order required Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s 

requests for production within thirty (30) days of the date of service of that order, and 

Defendants now seek an extension of that deadline until July 19, 2016. In support, 

Defendants have submitted a declaration of counsel indicating that counsel has begun 

working on the responses and requested documents to provide to Plaintiff. However, 

counsel requires additional time to receive the documents, review them, including for 

privilege and confidentiality, and fully-respond to Plaintiff’s forty requests. 

The Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension under the 

circumstances, where Defendant has shown diligence in responding to Plaintiff’s 

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Further, Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a brief 

extension allowing Defendants the time necessary to provide complete responses to his 

requests for production. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to modify the 

Court’s May 5, 2016 order, (ECF No. 80), is GRANTED. Defendants’ responses to 

Plaintiff’s first set of requests for production are due on or before July 19, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01599-LJO-BAM Document 81 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2