(PC) Parker v. N. West

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 MELVIN PARKER, No. 2:22-cv-2015 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 N. WEST, 15 Defendant. — 16 — 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is defendant’s 18 motion to modify the scheduling order and to reopen discovery filed September 16, 2024. (ECF 19 No. 59). For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is granted. 20 Governing Standards 21 The court will modify dates set forth in a scheduling order only upon a showing of good 22 cause by the moving party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 23 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). The “good cause” standard also applies to requests to reopen 24 discovery. See Sheridan v. Reinke, 611 F. App’x 381, 384 (9th Cir. 2015) (applying Johnson 25 “good cause” requirement to motion to reopen discovery); Yeager v. Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175 , 26 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009) (a party must show “good cause” to reopen discovery). The 27 primary factor courts consider in making a good cause determination is whether the moving party 28 was diligent in its attempts to complete discovery in a timely manner. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 1 If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the request should be denied. Id. 2 When ruling on a motion to amend a Rule 16 scheduling order to reopen discovery, courts 3 consider the following factors: 4 1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether 5 the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need 6 for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to 7 relevant evidence. 8 United States v. ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995) 9 (citation omitted), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 939 (1997). 10 Discussion 11 On June 18, 2024, this Court granted defendant’s first motion to modify the scheduling 12 order and extended the discovery deadline to August 8, 2024. (ECF No. 58.) The September 16, 13 2024 dispositive motion deadline remained in effect. (Id.) In the pending motion, defendant 14 requests that discovery be reopened until October 31, 2024 so that defendant may depose critical 15 incarcerated witness Durrell Puckett and that the dispositive motion deadline be extended to 16 November 20, 2024. (ECF No. 59-1.) In this action, plaintiff claims that defendant bribed Mr. 17 Puckett to try to kill plaintiff. (Id.) Mr. Puckett has been criminally charged in Sacramento 18 County Superior Court with the attempted murder of plaintiff on October 31, 2019. (Id.) 19 Defendant initially anticipated that Mr. Puckett’s testimony or plea in his criminal case would 20 become available before the relevant deadlines in the instant action. (Id.) However, Mr. 21 Puckett’s criminal case remains active and the next hearing in the criminal case is scheduled for 22 November 8, 2024. (Id.) Given the extended and uncertain timeline of Mr. Puckett’s criminal 23 case, defense counsel cannot predict if and when relevant testimony or a plea will occur in that 24 case. (Id.) 25 Defendant states that following the August 1, 2024 deposition of plaintiff, the extent to 26 which information Mr. Puckett allegedly conveyed to plaintiff to form the basis for this suit was 27 abundantly clear. (Id.) The relevancy and foreseeable need for Mr. Puckett’s testimony in this 28 case also became equally clear. (Id.) If Mr. Puckett invokes his Fifth Amendment rights during 1 | the deposition, defendant will seek a stay of this matter pending resolution of Mr. Puckett’s 2 || criminal case. (Id.) 3 This Court finds that defendant has shown good cause to reopen discovery for the limited 4 || purpose of deposing Mr. Puckett and to extend the dispositive motion deadline. In making this 5 || finding, this Court observes that no trial date has been set in this action. In addition, this Court 6 || finds that plaintiff not prejudiced by reopening discovery until October 31, 2024 so that Mr. 7 || Puckett may be deposed. This Court also finds that defendant acted diligently by making the 8 | pending request after determining that Mr. Puckett’s criminal proceedings had not concluded and 9 || after evaluating the need for Mr. Puckett’s testimony following plaintiff's deposition. The 10 || pending motion also demonstrates that deposing Mr. Puckett is likely to lead to relevant evidence. 11 | Although plaintiff has not opposed the pending motion, this Court finds that the factors discussed 12 || above demonstrate good cause to grant defendant’s motion to reopen discovery for the limited 13 || purpose of deposing Mr. Puckett and to extend the dispositive motion deadline. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order and to reopen discovery (ECF No. 16 || 59) is granted; 17 2. Discovery is reopened until October 31, 2024 for the limited purpose of deposing 18 || incarcerated witness Durrell Puckett; and 19 3. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to November 20, 2024. — 20 — 21 | Dated: September 18, 2024 A aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 24 — 25 || Park2015.eot 26 | 2 — 27 — — 28 —