Opinion
2:19-cv-2208 KJM KJN P
04-12-2023
MARK MCBOUNDS, Plaintiff, v. D. CLAYS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On April 10, 2023, defendants filed a second motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. Plaintiff again failed to respond to written discovery, and defendants seek to vacate their discovery deadline and to vacate the pretrial motions deadline until after the court rules on defendants' motion to compel discovery, filed concurrently with the motion to modify. The prior scheduling order was modified to allow plaintiff additional time to respond to written discovery requests, which to date have not been forthcoming.
“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” 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, 975 F.2d at 607).
Good cause appearing, defendants' second motion is granted. Plaintiff is required to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion to compel discovery. L.R. 230(1). Plaintiff was previously cautioned that he is required to cooperate in discovery, and his failure to do so may result in the issuance of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be terminated. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A) (sanctions may be imposed for failure to comply with a discovery order); Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d)(3) (sanctions may be imposed for failure to serve answers to interrogatories or to respond to request for production of documents).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 53) is granted;
2. Defendants' deadline for completing discovery is extended until the court rules on their motion to compel discovery; and
3. The July 3, 2023 pretrial motions deadline is vacated, and will be rescheduled, if appropriate, following the ruling on defendants' motion to compel discovery. In all other respects, the October 26, 2022 discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 49) remains in effect.