Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00846/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00846-11/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CUONG HUY DAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. TABOR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 22-cv-0846 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions to extend the discovery 

deadline and to compel. (ECF Nos. 46, 52.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motions are 

denied. 

Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline (ECF No. 46)

Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 16, the Court is required to issue a 

scheduling order as soon as practicable, and the order “must limit the time to join other parties, 

amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once a 

scheduling order has been filed pursuant to Rule 16, the “schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

////

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 4
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

“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 

amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A 

court may modify the schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 

seeking the extension.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). However, “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of 

diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (compiling cases). 

Thus, if the party seeking the modification “was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.

Discussion

On June 12, 2022, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 40.) This 

order stated that the parties could conduct discovery until October 6, 2023. (Id. at 5.) Any 

motions to compel were to be filed by that date. (Id.) This order also stated that all requests for 

discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later 

than sixty days prior to October 6, 2023, i.e., by August 7, 2023. (Id.) 

Pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff filed the motion to extend the discovery deadline on 

September 27, 2023. (ECF No. 46 at 4.) In this motion, plaintiff requests a 90 days extension of 

the discovery deadline because “plaintiff and defendants are working to complete the discovery 

process.” (Id. at 1-2.) 

Plaintiff does not address why he was unable to meet the discovery deadlines set in the 

June 12, 2022 discovery and scheduling order. Plaintiff’s statement that the parties are working 

to complete the discovery process also does not demonstrate that plaintiff was unable to meet the 

discovery deadlines despite his own diligence (moreover it does not indicate that defendants join 

in the request). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a 90 days extension of the discovery deadline 

is denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 52)

Plaintiff moves to compel defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s request for production of 

documents, interrogatories and request for admissions. (ECF No. 52 at 1.) Defendants oppose 

plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 55.)

In the motion to compel, plaintiff alleges that he served defendants with the at-issue 

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 4
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

discovery requests but defendants failed to respond before the October 6, 2023 discovery 

deadline. (ECF No. 52 at 1.) In the motion to compel, plaintiff states that he served his discovery 

requests on September 10, 2023, September 26, 2023, and September 27, 2023. (Id. at 10.) 

In the motion to compel, plaintiff states that on October 6, 2023, defense counsel served a 

notice stating that defendants received the following discovery requests from plaintiff: 1) first 

request for production of documents dated September 24, 2023; 2) first set of interrogatories 

dated September 26, 2023; and 3) first set of requests for admissions dated September 26, 2023. 

(Id. at 11.) Defense counsel informed plaintiff that the deadline to serve written discovery 

requests was August 7, 2023. (Id. at 12.) Defense counsel informed plaintiff that defendants 

would not respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests because they were untimely. (Id.)

In the motion to compel, plaintiff alleges that defendants “deployed unlawful deploying 

tactic to evade the court’s discovery order process.” (Id.) Plaintiff requests that the court order 

defendants to respond to his discovery requests. (Id.)

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to compel on the ground that the discovery requests 

are untimely. (ECF No. 55.) Defendants state that plaintiff mailed his discovery requests on the 

following dates: 1) request for production of documents mailed September 24, 2023; and 2) 

request for admissions and interrogatories mailed September 26, 2023. (ECF No. 55-1 at 1.) 

As discussed above, the discovery and scheduling order stated that all requests for 

discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later 

than sixty days prior to October 6, 2023. (ECF No. 40 at 5.) Sixty days prior to October 6, 2023,

was August 7, 2023. Therefore, plaintiff’s at-issue discovery requests are untimely because they 

were served after August 7, 2023. Plaintiff’s apparent misunderstanding of the discovery 

deadlines set in the discovery and scheduling order is not good cause to deem plaintiff’s at-issue 

discovery requests timely. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“carelessness is not compatible with a 

finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.”).

////

////

////

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 3 of 4
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline (ECF No. 46) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 52) is denied.

Dated: November 29, 2023

Dao846.com(p)

Case 2:22-cv-00846-TLN-CSK Document 63 Filed 11/29/23 Page 4 of 4