Reed v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying an indefinite postponement of his deposition, arguing that his legal documents were missing after release from segregation. The court granted the motion in part, continuing the deposition and fact discovery cut-off for a brief period to allow Plaintiff to obtain his documents, and denied the request for an indefinite postponement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Granted in Part“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and orders the following: 1. Plaintiffs deposition will be continued from May 27, 2020 to a date no earlier than June 15, 2020 and no later than June 19, 2020.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) by identifying newly discovered evidence (the release from segregation and the specific missing documents) that was not available at the time of the original motion. The court also correctly applied the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order, finding that the defendants' assurance of access to legal materials was not fulfilled, thus providing good cause for a brief continuance rather than an indefinite one. |
Motion for Reconsideration Denied in Part (Indefinite Postponement)“The Court finds good cause to continue Plaintiff’s deposition for a brief period so that Plaintiff may obtain his legal documents prior to his deposition.” | agree with court The court denied the request for an indefinite postponement because the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b)(4) requires a showing of diligence and specific justification for the extent of the delay. The court found that a brief period was sufficient to address the specific issue of missing documents, and indefinite postponement is generally disfavored in the interest of finality and judicial efficiency. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound because it correctly identifies the applicable legal standards for reconsideration and modification of scheduling orders. It applies these standards to the specific facts presented, distinguishing between new evidence (release and missing docs) and previously known facts (initial confiscation). The court's decision to grant a brief continuance rather than an indefinite one is a reasonable exercise of discretion under the 'good cause' standard, balancing the plaintiff's need for documents against the need for judicial efficiency.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MYCHAL ANDRA REED, Case No.: 18cv361-JLS-LL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 11 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 12 DANIEL PARAMO, et al., RECONSIDERATION 13 Defendants. [ECF No. 136] 14 15 16 17 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Re-request of His Motion for Indefinite 18 Postponement of Deposition [ECF No. 136] and Plaintiff’s Supporting Evidence for his 19 Re-request to Postpone his Deposition Indefinitely [ECF No. 140]. The Court construes 20 the two documents together as Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 21 April 23, 2020 Order (1) Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Indefinite Postponement of 22 Deposition and (2) Resetting Deposition Date and Fact Discovery Cut-off [ECF No. 116]. 23 Plaintiff argues that his deposition should be indefinitely postponed because 24 “contrary to defendants [sic] statements (ECF No. 123),” Plaintiff requested his legal 25 property while he was in segregation housing on three separate occasions to no avail. ECF 26 No. 136 at 1, 7, 9, 11. Plaintiff argues that his ignored requests and assignment to 27 segregation housing are acts of retaliation and designed to hinder him from adequately 28 litigating against Defendants. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff claims that when he receives his legal 1 documents, he “needs ample time to review them after not having access to them for almost 2 5 (five) months.” Id. at 2. In his “supporting evidence,” Plaintiff states that he was released 3 from segregation housing on April 30, 2020 and “made to sign a property inventory 4 document (CDCR 1083) without first given an opportunity to actually view his property 5 items to see if in fact all his property was accounted for.” ECF No. 140 at 1–2, 6. Plaintiff 6 further states that upon review, several of his items are missing, including all his legal 7 documents pertaining to this case. Id. at 2, 4, 5. Plaintiff requested the return of his property 8 on April 30 and May 1, 2020 before mailing this motion on May 2 or 3, 2020. Id. at 4, 5, 9 7, 8. Plaintiff contends that he cannot adequately present the facts of his case in a deposition 10 without his legal documents. Id at 2. He requests a copy of the docket sheet to attempt to 11 request copies of his filings “so he can have deposition in the near future.” Id. 12 A district court may reconsider an order under either Federal Rule of Civil 13 Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from 14 judgment).1 See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 15 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration [pursuant to Rule 59(e)] is appropriate if the district 16 court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 17 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling 18 law.” Id. at 1263. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) will be granted “only 19 upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 20 evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; 21 or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); 22 Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Under this 23 district’s Local Rules, a party that files a motion for reconsideration of an order must set 24 forth what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist, which did not 25 exist, or were not shown, in the prior motion. CivLR 7.1.i. Reconsideration is an 26 27 1 The use of the term “Rule” in this order refers to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 1 “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of 2 judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation 3 omitted). 4 The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented some new evidence that was not 5 available at the time of the original motion.2 Specifically, Plaintiff has been released from 6 segregation housing and his property returned, but the legal documents are missing despite 7 being requested. Plaintiff seeks an indefinite postponement of his deposition, which is 8 currently set for May 27, 2020. The Court had set the deposition date based on the 9 assurance by Defendants that Plaintiff would be granted access to his legal materials prior 10 to the deposition if he requested them. ECF No. 134 at 2, 4. Therefore, the Court finds it 11 appropriate to reconsider its order based on the newly discovered evidence. See 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 13 “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Rule 16(b)'s 'good cause' standard primarily considers the 15 diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 16 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 The Court finds good cause to continue Plaintiff’s deposition for a brief period so 18 that Plaintiff may obtain his legal documents prior to his deposition. The Court notes that 19 Plaintiff requested his legal documents the day he was released from segregation housing 20 21 22 2 On the other hand, some of Plaintiff’s “new” evidence was known to Plaintiff at the time 23 of the original motion for indefinite postponement of his deposition but was not communicated to the Court in Plaintiff’s motion or reply. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, 24 Defendants did not dispute that Plaintiff had requested his legal documents three times to 25 no avail because Plaintiff did not disclose that he had done so. See ECF No. 123 at 2; see also ECF Nos. 116, 130. Instead, Plaintiff stated only that his legal documents had been 26 confiscated when he entered segregation housing and there was no set date for his release 27 or the return of his property. ECF No. 116 at 1. Plaintiff’s arguments regarding retaliation designed to prevent him from adequately litigating were presented in his original motion 28 1 || and the following day, and then he immediately filed the instant motion. It is possible that 2 ||he has since received them. In the event he has not, the Court will continue the deposition 3 || for a brief period and provide a copy of the docket sheet. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 4 || IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and orders the 5 || following: 6 1. Plaintiffs deposition will be continued from May 27, 2020 to a date no earlier 7 || than June 15, 2020 and no later than June 19, 2020. 8 2. Fact discovery cut-off will be continued from June 4, 2020 to June 19, 2020. 9 3. All other deadlines and requirements remain as_ previously set. 10 ECF Nos. 98, 108. 11 4. The Office of the Clerk is DIRECTED to provide a copy of the docket sheet 12 || to Plaintiff. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: May 19, 2020 NO 15 DEF 16 Honorable Linda Lopez 7 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28