Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00229/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00229-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Campbell
Defendant
Paul Montanez
Plaintiff
Velasco
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MONTANEZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

VELASCO, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-00229-DAD-EPG-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE

(ECF No. 29.)

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL TIMELY

FILED

(ECF No. 30.)

ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE

MOTIONS DEADLINE FOR ALL PARTIES

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: March 21, 2016

I. BACKGROUND

Paul Montanez (“Plaintiff”) is a Los Angeles County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now 

proceeds on Plaintiff’s original Complaint, filed on February 17, 2012, against defendants 

Sergeant Campbell and Correctional Officer Velasco (“Defendants”), for inadequate medical 

care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

1

(ECF No. 1.) 

On February 9, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing deadlines of 

October 9, 2015 for completion of discovery, and December 21, 2015 for the parties to file 

pretrial dispositive motions. (ECF No. 22.) On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories. (ECF No. 30.) The motion 

to compel is pending.

 

1 On August 8, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from 

this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a § 1983 claim. (ECF No. 12.)

Case 1:12-cv-00229-DAD-EPG Document 35 Filed 12/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of the discovery deadline. 

(ECF No. 29.) On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 

30.) On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff’s 

motion for extension of the discovery deadline is now before the Court.

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the 

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not 

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 

(9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the Court=s deadline date for discovery by 

demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery deadline to allow time for resolution of 

his motion to compel. In opposition, Defendants argue that an extension of the discovery 

deadline is unnecessary for resolution of the motion to compel, and Plaintiff has not indicated 

that he needs additional time to submit additional discovery requests or take depositions. 

Defendants also argue that both parties had sufficient time to complete discovery, and Plaintiff 

has already served written discovery including requests for production of documents and 

interrogatories upon both Defendants. Plaintiff replies that the discovery deadline should be 

extended to allow Defendants to respond properly to the requests for production of documents 

and interrogatories served by Plaintiff.

Discussion

The Court finds no immediate need to modify the Scheduling Order to allow time for 

resolution of the motion to compel. The discovery deadline of October 9, 2015 was established 

“for the completion of all discovery, including the filing of motions to compel discovery.” 

Case 1:12-cv-00229-DAD-EPG Document 35 Filed 12/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

(ECF No. 22 at 2 ¶7 (emphasis added)). Plaintiff’s motion to compel was timely filed,

2

and it 

is not necessary for the motion to compel to be resolved before the discovery deadline expires. 

Therefore, the Court finds no good cause to extend the discovery deadline, and Plaintiff’s 

motion shall be denied. 

However, the Court finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline. In 

light of the fast approach of the deadline, and the fact that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is 

pending, the deadline for the parties to file pretrial dispositive motions shall be extended from 

December 21, 2015 to March 20, 2015. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline, filed on October 20, 2015, is 

DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, filed on October 20, 2015, is deemed timely filed; 

and

3. Good cause appearing, the deadline for the parties to file pretrial dispositive 

motions is EXTENDED from December 21, 2015 to March 21, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion to compel was untimely filed, because the motion was filed 

with the Court on October 20, 2015, after the expiration of the October 9th discovery deadline. Plaintiff argues 

that he timely submitted the motion to compel under the mailbox rule. Based on the mailbox rule of Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988), a pro se prisoner=s Court filing is deemed filed at the time the prisoner 

delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the Court Clerk. Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th 

Cir. 2009.) Here, Plaintiff’s signature on the motion to compel is dated October 8, 2015, and Plaintiff asserts that 

he timely handed the motion to Deputies on October 8, 2015 for legal process and mailing, prior to the October 9th

deadline. (ECF Nos. 30:11, 33:17-18.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s evidence sufficient to deem the motion to 

compel timely filed.

Case 1:12-cv-00229-DAD-EPG Document 35 Filed 12/16/15 Page 3 of 3