(PC) Anderson v. Vangerwen

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00246
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN DAVID ANDERSON, No. 2:20-cv-00246 DC SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT M. VAN GERWEN, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is incarcerated in Washington State and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the undersigned is defendants’ 19 motion to extend deadlines. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff did not timely oppose the motion. For the 20 reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted. The discovery and dispositive motion 21 deadlines shall be continued to December 11, 2025, and March 3, 2026, respectively. All other 22 provisions of the discovery and scheduling order (“DSO”) remain in effect. (ECF No. 47). 23 BACKGROUND 24 The action is proceeding on plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint filed March 20, 2023. 25 (ECF No. 27.) The previously assigned magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915A and determined it stated cognizable claims against defendants Van Gerwen, Page, 27 Dorstad, Schritter, Hurte, Jurkiewicz, and Mason. (ECF No. 28.) As of April 3, 2025, all 28 defendants have filed answers. (ECF Nos. 41, 46.) On April 8, 2025, the undersigned issued a 1 DSO setting a discovery cutoff of August 11, 2025, and a dispositive motion deadline of 2 November 3, 2025. (ECF No. 47.) 3 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES 4 I. Defendants’ Argument 5 On August 4, 2025, defendants moved to modify the DSO to allow additional time to 6 depose plaintiff. (ECF No. 48.) Defendants’ motion is supported by the declaration of counsel 7 John R. Whitefleet (hereinafter “Whitefleet Decl.”). (ECF No. 48-1.) 8 On July 21, 2025, Defendants served a Notice of Deposition on plaintiff for a remote 9 deposition to take place on August 4, 2025, to the address of record for plaintiff: a P.O. Box 10 address in Washington. (Whitefleet Decl. ¶ 3.) On July 31, 2025, having not heard from plaintiff 11 on the topic, defense counsel sought to coordinate transmission of a Zoom link for plaintiff to 12 remotely appear. (Id. ¶ 4.) Counsel then learned that plaintiff is actually incarcerated at Airway 13 Heights Correction Center located at 11919 Sprague Ave, Airway Heights, WA 99001, and only 14 has access to his P.O. Box via a proxy, his mother. (Id.) Therefore, the deposition scheduled for 15 August 4, 2025, was unable to proceed. (Id. ¶ 5.) 16 Defense counsel attempted to coordinate with correctional authorities in Washington to 17 arrange for the deposition to occur. (Whitefleet Decl. ¶ 5.) In doing so, defense counsel was 18 informed Airway Heights Correction Center does not allow depositions at the facility over Zoom 19 or other remote means but rather are only facilitated in person. (Id.) Defendants maintain that 20 additional time is necessary to complete the deposition. (Id.) 21 II. Legal Standard 22 Under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “good cause” is required for 23 modification of a court’s pretrial scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 24 cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson 25 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “If the party seeking the 26 modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be 27 granted.” Zivokovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). In determining whether good cause exists to reopen discovery, courts 1 | may consider a variety of factors, such as: (1) whether trial is imminent, (2) whether the request is 2 || opposed, (3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, (4) whether the moving party 3 || was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, (5) the 4 || foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by 5 || the district court, and (6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. U.S. ex 6 | rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), vacated on other 7 | grounds, 520 U.S. 939 (1997). 8 Ill. Discussion 9 Defendants have established the diligence necessary to extend the discovery and 10 | dispositive motion deadlines. Defendants scheduled the deposition two weeks out, which, given 11 | the remote nature of the planned deposition and the fact plaintiffs § 1983 action is not 12 | “exceedingly complex,” constitutes “reasonable written notice” under Rule 30(b)(1) of the 13 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 320, 327 (N.D. 14 || Ill. 2005). Second, defendants were not aware of plaintiff's incarceration in Washington State 15 | and reasonably relied on his address of record. The court notes that in the Eastern District, a 16 | party appearing pro se is under a continuing obligation to keep the court and opposing parties 17 || advised as to his or her current address. Local Rule 183(b). Finally, there does not appear to be 18 | any prejudice to plaintiff as trial is not imminent and plaintiff has not timely opposed defendants’ 19 | motion. See Local Rule 230(1) (twenty-one (21) days to oppose motions in prisoner actions). 20 CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Defendants’ motion to extend deadlines (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED. 23 2. Discovery is due by December 11, 2025, and all pretrial motions, except motions 24 || to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before March 3, 2026. All other provisions of the DSO 25 || (ECF No. 47) remain in effect. 26 | DATED: August 29, 2025 md 27 Zz ( SEAN C. RIORDAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE