Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06428/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06428-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DeWAYNE NOLAN LOGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE I, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-cv-06428-AWI-SMS PC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL

(Doc. 76)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY

DEADLINE

(Doc. 77)

Plaintiff DeWayne Nolan Logan (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 4, 2006, the

undersigned issued a scheduling order setting the discovery deadline for December 5, 2006. On

November 16, 2006, plaintiff filed a timely motion to compel, and on December 1, 2006, plaintiff

filed a timely motion seeking a sixty-day extension of the discovery deadline. Defendant Adams

(“defendant”) filed an opposition to both motions on December 6, 2006. 

Plaintiff seeks to compel a response to two requests for admission, served sometime in

August of 2006. Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds that plaintiff failed to attempt to

resolve the dispute prior to seeking court intervention and that the motion is moot. Defendant states

that he did not receive the requests for admission prior to being served with plaintiff’s motion to

compel and responses to the two requests have now been served.

///

Case 1:02-cv-06428-AWI -SMS Document 79 Filed 01/23/07 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 Given that plaintiff is incarcerated, this requirement may be fulfilled via the exchange of letters. 1

2

Pursuant to the scheduling order, plaintiff is required to make a good faith effort to confer

with defendant’s counsel and resolve the discovery dispute prior to involving the court. (Doc. 73, 1

¶5.) Plaintiff’s motion to compel was not accompanied by a certification that he made a good faith

attempt to resolve the discovery dispute prior to filing his motion to compel. That ground alone

would require denial of plaintiff’s motion to compel. In addition, the motion is now moot given that

defendant served a response once he became aware of the discovery request. For those reasons,

plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied.

With respect to plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline, a scheduling

order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). A finding of good

cause is dependant upon a showing of diligence in complying with the deadline. Zivkovic v.

Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). In this instance, discovery

was opened on April 4, 2006, and plaintiff did not serve his requests for admission until August of

2006. Plaintiff has made no showing why he was unable to complete discovery in the eight months

the parties were allotted. 

Although plaintiff contends that he cannot draft his next requests for admission without the

benefit of defendant’s responses to his first two requests for admission, this conclusory assertion is

insufficient to support a finding of good cause. Plaintiff asked defendant to admit that it was his

signature on a memorandum and to admit that a particular document was used by staff to establish

which activities were allowed in March of 2002, when the facility was operating under a state of

emergency. Defendant admitted to both requests. It is not obvious to the court why plaintiff needed

these responses in order to formulate additional discovery requests and plaintiff has provided no

explanation. The court finds that plaintiff has not supported hismotion for an extension of time with

good cause, and the motion shall be denied. 

///

///

///

Case 1:02-cv-06428-AWI -SMS Document 79 Filed 01/23/07 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed November 16, 2006, is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a sixty-day extension of the discovery deadline, filed December

1, 2006, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06428-AWI -SMS Document 79 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 3