Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01932/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01932-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

BARRY BARTLETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLENBY,

Defendant.

No. 1:14-cv-01932 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 62)

Plaintiff Barry Bartlett (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on December 4, 2014, and it proceeds 

against Defendant Allenby for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The action is now in discovery. Pursuant to the Court’s May 2, 2016, Discovery and 

Scheduling Order, the parties were to exchange initial disclosures by June 16, 2016.

On July 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file his initial disclosures. He 

also submitted a copy of the disclosures that he provided to Defendant. The Court deems the 

matter suitable for decision without further briefing. Local Rule 230(l).

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “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, 

Case 1:14-cv-01932-LJO-GSA Document 64 Filed 07/08/16 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

609 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 

modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon 

the moving party’s reasons for seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party 

seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify 

should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Here, Plaintiff states that he was ill in May and as a result, believed that the disclosures 

were not due until July 16, 2016. He became aware of the mistake when he received Defendant’s 

disclosures. As noted above, Plaintiff has exchanged his initial disclosures. 

For good cause, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01932-LJO-GSA Document 64 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2