1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST LEE VADEN, No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR. ROBERT L. MAYES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 18 rights under

. Defendants are the California Department of Corrections and 19 Rehabilitation (CDCR) and two CDCR employees: Dr. Mayes and Chief Medical Executive 20 Kuersten. Discovery is closed. 21 Plaintiff seeks leave to serve 15 requests for production of documents, 15 interrogatories, 22 and 15 requests for admissions. Plaintiff asserts that after the point he was no longer permitted to 23 serve requests for discovery, he was provided evidence from defendants which necessitates 24 further discovery. 25 Newly discovered evidence is not, by itself, a reason to reopen discovery. Discovery can 26 only be reopened if the moving party demonstrates diligence in conducting discovery before the 27 deadline passed. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 28 ///// ] For the most part, plaintiff has not shown that what he seeks now could not have been 2 || sought before the expiration of the deadline with the exercise of due diligence. Plaintiff does not 3 || identify any new request or interrogatory specifically, nor does he identify upon which party or 4 || parties the requests for discovery would be served. Further, it is not even clear what information 5 || is sought, nor from whom. Thus, it is nearly impossible to conclude whether his requests should 6 || have been made sooner, whether they are repetitive of requests already made, or if Federal Rule 7 || of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) already requires that defendants turn over discoverable information 8 || requested as part of their continuing duty to correct or supplement responses to prior requests for 9 || discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). 10 In a few instances plaintiff does at least give provide some specificity as to the 11 || information he seeks.' Even with the more particularized requests, however, plaintiff fails to 12 || show that anything discoverable could not have been sought before the close of discovery with 13 || the exercise of due diligence or that the information has not previously been sought. 14 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 199) is DENIED; and 16 2. The pretrial motion filing deadline is January 15, 2026. Any motion for summary 17 judgment must be filed by that date. 18 || Dated: November 18, 2025 / a8 } i | Ld , {a ce

20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 | 1 34 vade2216.mtc(8) 25 26 Q_—_ x Sod ' For instance, although he fails to identify the party responsible, he requests emails between Ann 28 | Sumner and Cary MacDonald, Melanie Delavega, and P. Baumert sent June 18, 2018.