Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02410/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02410-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

AMIR EKUNWE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2410 TLN DB PS

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On October 26, 2016, defendant David McEntire filed an ex parte application for an order 

to modify the pretrial scheduling order. (ECF No. 25.) Therein, defendant alleges that he served 

plaintiff with “Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Admissions, Set One,

and Special Interrogatories, Set One on August 12, 2016.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff, however, “refused 

to provide any responses at all.” (Id.) Defendant asserts that he “was prepared to file and serve” 

a motion to compel on October 18, 2016, but the undersigned’s “calendar is full on every date 

prior to the discovery deadline.” (Id. at 2.) Based on this argument, defendant seeks an extension 

of the discovery deadline to December 9, 2016. (Id.)

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

for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily 

Case 2:14-cv-02410-TLN-DB Document 27 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the 

pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). 

Here, on March 9, 2016, the previously assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Order setting the deadline for the completion of discovery for November 9, 2016. 

(ECF No. 21 at 3.) Defendant waited over five months to propound the discovery at issue—

discovery characterized as “Set One.” Defendant then waited more than two months to file a 

motion to compel plaintiff’s response. 

With respect to defendant’s motion to compel, had defendant filed his motion to compel 

on October 18, 2016, the earliest defendant’s motion could have been heard pursuant to Local 

Rule 251, would have been on November 1, 2016, just eight days prior to the deadline for the 

completion of discovery. Given the nature of defendant’s discovery requests, the undersigned 

would have found that eight days is not a sufficient amount of time in which to order a pro se 

party to respond to defendant’s multiple discovery requests.

Moreover, November 1, 2016 is a Tuesday. The undersigned regularly holds law and 

motion hearings on Fridays. Had defendant filed his motion to compel on October 18, 2016, 

there would have been a single regularly occurring law and motion date, Friday November 4, 

2016, only five days prior to the discovery cutoff. Defendant, of course, could have filed an 

application for an order shortening time and/or requested a specially set hearing. However, 

instead defendant waited another eight days to raise this issue on October 26, 2016.

In this regard, that the undersigned was unavailable on the one regularly occurring law 

and motion date remaining until the deadline for the completion of discovery is irrelevant. 

Defendant simply failed to bring his motion with sufficient time remaining under the discovery 

deadline. Defendant has, therefore, failed to establish good cause for granting his motion and his 

motion will be denied.

1

 That denial, however, will be without prejudice to a renewed request by 

 

1

 This is not to say that defendant could not fashion an argument establishing good cause from 

the facts alleged. Defendant, however, has not raised that argument. 

Case 2:14-cv-02410-TLN-DB Document 27 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 3
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

defendant that establishes good cause. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s October 26, 2016 ex parte 

application for an order to modify the pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 25) is denied without 

prejudice.

Dated: October 31, 2016

DLB:6\orders.pro se\ekunwe2410.eot.disc.den.ord

Case 2:14-cv-02410-TLN-DB Document 27 Filed 11/01/16 Page 3 of 3