(PC) Stevens v. Martinez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01144
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEADLINE 13 v. FOR FILING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION 14 C. MARTINEZ, FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

15 Defendant. (Doc. 49) 16

17 Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Martinez and Peterson for 19 violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on April 1, 2024. (Doc. 37.) On 22 December 17, 2024, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendant Peterson’s Motion 23 to Compel. (Doc. 45.) Plaintiff was ordered to “respond to Peterson’s Request for Production No. 24 4, no later than 21 days from the date of service of this order, by providing responsive documents, 25 or a written response indicating she is not in possession of any documents responsive to request 26 number 4 ….” (Id. at 5.) 27 On February 25, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ second motion to modify the 1 On March 28, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions. (Doc. 48.) 2 Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to this motion is due by April 18, 2025, plus 3 time for mailing. 4 On April 1, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Vacate Deadlines Pending Decision on 5 Motion for Terminating Sanctions.1 (Doc. 49.) The Court finds a response by Plaintiff to be 6 unnecessary and will consider the instant motion. 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 9 be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 10 good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 11 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 12 the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 13 extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 14 Defendants assert Plaintiff’s failure to participate in discovery proceedings and to comply 15 with the Court’s Order granting Defendant Peterson’s motion to compel warrants granting the 16 motion to vacate the remaining deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. (Doc. 49 at 3.) They 17 contend they cannot adequately prepare a merits-based dispositive motion without reviewing the 18 Gender Identity Questionnaire that was the subject of their motion to compel. (Id.) Defense 19 counsel states that following the Court’s December 17, 2024, order granting Defendant Peterson’s 20 motion to compel, Plaintiff failed to submit the required response, and as of the date of this 21 motion, Defendants still have not received the information from Plaintiff. (Doc. 49-1 at 2, ¶ 10.) 22 Counsel contends the motion for terminating sanctions may dispose of this action, and therefore, 23 vacating the May 22, 2025, dispositive motion filing deadline is in the best interest of judicial 24 efficiency and economy. (Id., ¶ 11.) 25 The Court finds Defendants have demonstrated good cause for a modification of the 26 scheduling order. The Court will vacate the remaining deadline for filing merits-based dispositive 27

1 The only deadline remaining pertains to the filing of merits-based dispositive motions. All other discovery 1 motions until the motion for terminating sanctions is resolved. The Court will then reset the 2 deadline, if needed. 3 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 5 1. Defendants’ motion to vacate the dispositive motion deadline (Doc. 49) is 6 GRANTED; and 7 2. The May 22, 2025, deadline for filing dispositive motions is VACATED. The 8 deadline will be reset, if needed, following resolution of Defendants’ pending motion 9 for terminating sanctions. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: April 2, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27