Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00830-23/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRADY HARRIS,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0830 TLN DB P

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff claims that defendants violated his Eighth and First Amendment rights. Presently before 

the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 130.) For the reasons set forth 

below, the court will deny the motion. 

I. Background 

This action was proceeding on plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against defendant 

correctional officers Rose, Munoz, Fong, Williamson, Calderon, Thompson, Cervantes, Fuller, 

and Leavitt. On June 8, 2020, the District Judge assigned to this action granted in part and denied 

in part defendant Leavitt’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff was given leave to file an 

amended complaint. After plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC), the court issued 

an amended discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 113.)

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 132 Filed 07/01/22 Page 1 of 7
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

The August 5, 2021, amended Discovery and Scheduling Order (“DSO”) stated that 

discovery was reopened only as to defendant Leavitt. (Id. at 5 ¶ 6.) The DSO further stated that 

the parties could conduct discovery as to defendant Leavitt until October 8, 2021, and any 

motions necessary to compel discovery were to be filed by that date. The order specified that 

discovery requests were to be served thirty days prior to the October 8, 2021, discovery deadline. 

(Id.) 

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on January 28, 2022. 1 (ECF No. 117.) Defendant 

Leavitt opposed the motion. (ECF No. 124.) The undersigned denied plaintiff’s motion to 

compel as untimely. (ECF No. 128.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant motion for 

reconsideration. (ECF No. 130.) Defendant Leavitt has filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF 

No. 131.) Because the order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel indicated that plaintiff could 

file a renewed motion and thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking the same relief, the 

court will construe plaintiff’s motion as a renewed motion to compel in addition to construing it 

as a motion for reconsideration. However, as set forth below, the motion should be denied under 

both standards. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the undersigned’s denial of his motion to compel. (ECF 

No. 130.) In a declaration attached to the motion, plaintiff states that he gave discovery requests 

to prison officials for mailing on September 6, 2021. (ECF No. 130 at 45.) He received the 

copies on September 18, 2021. He sent copies to counsel for defendant Leavitt as well as counsel 

for the remaining defendants. He received copies of his second set of discovery requests on 

November 13, 2021. (Id. at 45-46.) 

He states he “resent the second copy of discovery documents” to defendants on November 

18, 2021. He received a response containing their objections. Plaintiff states he sent a letter on 

December 8, 2021, regarding their failure to sufficiently respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests. 

1 Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, a document is deemed served on the date a prisoner signs 

the document and gives it to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 

(1988). 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 132 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 7
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

Counsel’s letter in response, attached as an exhibit to plaintiff’s motion, is dated December 21, 

2021. (ECF No. 130 at 22-23.) Plaintiff’s original motion to compel is dated January 28, 2022. 

(ECF No. 117 at 2.)

Plaintiff has explained the delay in submitting discovery requests and moving to compel 

further responses to his requests by arguing that it takes time for prison officials to process his 

mail and the pandemic has made that even more difficult. (ECF No. 130 at 3-4.) He further

argues that Leavitt should be compelled to respond to his discovery requests because the 

responses provided were insufficient and the evidence requested is important to prove his case. 

(Id. at 7-11.) 

III. Defendant Leavitt’s Opposition

Defendant argues that plaintiff has not shown any new facts to warrant reconsideration of 

the court’s prior ruling and he has failed to show good cause as instructed in the court’s prior 

order. (ECF No. 131.)

IV. Discussion 

A. Motion to Modify Scheduling Order

1. Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that, “[a] schedule may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16’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).

2. Analysis 

Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the delay in seeking to compel further 

responses to his discovery requests, seeking additional time to conduct discovery, or filing a 

motion to compel. In support of his argument, he has alleged that sending and receiving mail 

while in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

takes additional time and the pandemic has made things worse. However, plaintiff has stated that 

mail issues have been a problem throughout litigation of this action. (ECF No. 130 at 3.) The 

arguments put forth in his motion fail to show that he acted diligently in seeking to compel further 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 132 Filed 07/01/22 Page 3 of 7
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

responses from defendant Leavitt. The court is sympathetic to the difficulties inherent in 

litigating a claim while incarcerated. However, plaintiff has failed to explain why, in light of the 

delays in obtaining copies and mailing documents, he did not request an extension of time to

submit discovery requests or file a motion to compel at any point before the deadline set forth in 

the discovery and scheduling order. 

The court’s prior order advised plaintiff that he must show good cause to warrant 

modification of the scheduling order to allow him to seek discovery. The order further stated that 

to determine whether a party had shown good cause the court primarily considers the diligence of 

the party seeking the modification. Plaintiff’s sole argument in the renewed motion is that the 

delay is attributable to prison mail delays. However, he has failed to explain why he did not 

request additional time and did not file a motion to compel until several months after the deadline 

expired. Accordingly, the court finds the renewed motion fails to show good cause sufficient to 

warrant reopening discovery.

B. Motion to Compel

1. Legal Standards

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery 

regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within the scope of 

discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

In response to a request for production of documents under Rule 34, a party is to produce 

all relevant documents in its “possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The 

purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the parties can obtain 

evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” United States v. Chapman Univ., 245 

F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted). 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 132 Filed 07/01/22 Page 4 of 7
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

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party seeking discovery may 

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(3)(B). The court may order a party to provide further responses to an “evasive or 

incomplete disclosure, answer, or response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “District courts have 

‘broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16.’” Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). 

“The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 

satisfies the relevancy requirement of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has 

the burden of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, 

explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 

1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (citations omitted). Specifically, the party moving to 

compel bears the burden of informing the court (1) which discovery requests are the subject of the 

motion to compel, (2) which of the responses are disputed, (3) why the party believes the 

response is deficient, (4) why any objections are not justified, and (5) why the information sought 

through discovery is relevant to the prosecution of this action. McCoy v. Ramirez, No. 1:13-cv1808-MJS (PC), 2016 WL 3196738, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2016); Ellis v. Cambra, No. 1:02-cv5646-AWI-SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008).

2. Analysis 

The prior order also advised that a party seeking to compel discovery must inform the 

court “which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, which responses are 

disputed, why the responses are deficient, why the objections are not justified, and why the 

information is relevant. (ECF No. 128 at 4.) Plaintiff has alleged all of the responses received 

were inadequate and made clear that he disagrees with the objections raised. (ECF No. 130 at 4, 

7-8.) However, plaintiff’s disagreement is not sufficient to show that the objectionsshould be 

overruled. Johnson v. Cate, No. 1:10–cv–02348–LJO–MJS, 2014 WL 4249141, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 

Aug. 27, 2014) (A mere disagreement with the responding party’s responses is not a basis for 

objection.). The renewed motion to compel should also be denied on the merits. 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 132 Filed 07/01/22 Page 5 of 7
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

C. Reconsideration 

1. Legal Standards

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, reconsideration is appropriate in three 

instances: (1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence has 

come to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. School 

District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (1993). Additionally, the local rules state that 

a motion for reconsideration must demonstrate: “what new or different facts or circumstances are 

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 

grounds exist for the motion; and [] why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of 

the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3), (4).

2. Analysis 

To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s denial of his motion to compel, 

he fails to show any change of law or new information sufficient to warrant a change in the 

ruling. Plaintiff’s motion largely reiterates the arguments contained in his motion to compel. He 

has also stated that he failed to timely file his motion to compel because of prison mail delays 

exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Such arguments fail to show a change in the law or 

new evidence sufficient to warrant reconsideration. 

Plaintiff failed to timely file a motion to compel or seek additional time to file a motion to 

compel. He acknowledges in his motion that he was aware of prison mail delays well before 

submitting discovery requests to defendants. However, he makes no attempt to explain why he 

failed to present this argument earlier. Thus, his motion fails to present an argument that would 

support reconsideration of the prior order denying his motion to compel. 

V. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 118, 121.) Plaintiff is 

advised that his opposition to such motions is overdue. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motions within thirty days of the date of this order.

//// 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 132 Filed 07/01/22 Page 6 of 7
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

7

VI. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration (ECF No. 130) is denied.

Dated: June 30, 2022

 

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/harr0830.renewed.mtc

Case 2:16-cv-00830-TLN-SCR Document 132 Filed 07/01/22 Page 7 of 7