Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02868/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02868-15/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

WALTER HOWARD WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SMYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC-P

ORDER

On December 16, 2014, the magistrate judge issued an order denying as moot

Plaintiff Walter Howard White’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a sixty-day extension of discovery 

deadlines. See ECF No. 78. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, 

ECF No. 82. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld 

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff requested 

an extension of discovery deadlines. ECF No. 65. The magistrate judge granted the 

request on October 14, 2014, and the discovery period was extended by sixty (60) days. 

ECF No. 68 at 7. Consequently, the parties had until December 2, 2014, to serve any 

requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36, and until February 2, 

2015, to serve discovery responses. On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff requested a 

second sixty-day extension of discovery deadlines. ECF No. 77. On December 17, 

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 87 Filed 01/27/15 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

2014, the magistrate judge denied the request as moot on the grounds that the Court 

had previously allowed the parties to “conduct discovery until February 2, 2015.” ECF 

No. 78 at 1. However, a review of Plaintiff’s second request clearly demonstrates that he

was requesting an extension of the deadline to propound additional discovery requests

beyond the December 2, 2014, deadline. ECF No. 77 at 26-27. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request was not moot and his Motion for Reconsideration, 

ECF No. 82, is GRANTED. This case is referred to the magistrate judge for 

consideration of the merits of Plaintiff’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-02868-MCE-AC Document 87 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2