1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER ROBERT LUTE, Case No. 1:20-cv-01122-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF 13 v. TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS 14 E. SILVA, et al., (Doc. 78) 15 Defendants.

16

17

18 Plaintiff Christopher Robert Lute is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to

. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 20 excessive force claims against Defendants E. Moreno, A. Randolph, E. Romero and O. 21 Valladolid. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On August 5, 2025, the Court issued its Order Lifting Stay (Doc. 74), and its Discovery 24 and Scheduling Order (Doc. 75). 25 On October 17, 2025, Defendants filed their request for an extension of time within which 26 to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Doc. 78.) The Court finds a response by Plaintiff to 27 be unnecessary. 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 Defendants indicate their responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests are due October 21, 3 | 2025. They seek a 14-day extension of time within which to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories 4 | and request for production of documents, served September 3, 2025.! Defense counsel 5 || commenced obtaining responsive documents and information from the California Department of 6 | Corrections and Rehabilitation upon receipt from her office’s docketing unit, however, she had 7 | not yet received all the requested information. Counsel states once she receives the remaining 8 || requested information, she will need additional time to review it, finish completing the draft 9 | responses, and to obtain verifications from the individual Defendants. 10 District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 11 } litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Hunt v. County of Orange,

, 616 12 | (9th Cir. 2012). When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, 13 | extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before 14 | the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 15 Here, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadline for Defendants’ responses to 16 | Plaintiffs written discovery requests. 17 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 19 1. Defendants’ request for an extension of time within which to respond to Plaintiff's 20 written discovery requests (Doc. 78) is GRANTED; and 21 2. Defendants SHALL respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories and request for production 22 of documents no later than November 4, 2025. 23 | IT IS ORDERED. Dated: _ October 21, 2025 | Wr bo 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27

! The discovery requests bear a postmark of September 6, 2025.