Jacobs v. Sullivan et al

Filing 104

ORDER Granting 103 Motion for Extension of Deadline for all Parties to File Dispositive Motions signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/26/2012. Dispositive Motions filed by 9/29/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:05-cv-01625-LJO-GSA (PC)
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
DEADLINE FOR ALL PARTIES TO
FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
(Doc. 103.)

W. J. SULLIVAN, et al.,
New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 09-29-2012

15
16

Defendants.
__________________________/

17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiff George E. Jacobs IV (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds

20

on the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on May 5, 2010. (Doc. 29.) The Court issued

21

a scheduling order on January 23, 2012, establishing a deadline of March 3, 2012 for the parties

22

to complete discovery, including motions to compel, and a deadline of June 29, 2012 for the parties

23

to file pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 83.) On June 25, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to

24

vacate the dispositive motions deadline, or in the alternative, to extend the dispositive motions

25

deadline for ninety days. (Doc. 103.) Defendants’ motion is now before the Court.

26

///

27
28

1

1

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

2

Modification of the Court’s scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ.

3

P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

4

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the

5

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due

6

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the

7

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling

8

order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion

9

to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

10

Defendants request a stay of the deadline to file dispositive motions until after the Court

11

has ruled on pending motions to compel. Defendants argue that it is more efficient to first resolve

12

the discovery motions than to require the parties to file their dispositive motions by the current

13

deadline, in order to avoid opposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). In the

14

alternative, defense counsel seeks a ninety-day extension of the deadline to complete Defendants’

15

motion for summary judgment, on the ground that counsel’s workload is heavy and more time is

16

needed despite counsel’s best efforts.

17

The Court finds that defense counsel has shown due diligence in attempting to complete

18

and file Defendants’ motion for summary judgment before the expiration of the discovery deadline

19

established by the Court's scheduling order. The Court also finds that Defendants have presented

20

good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline for all parties to this action. Thus,

21

Defendants’ motion to extend the deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions shall be granted.

22

III.

CONCLUSION

23

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1.

25
26

Defendants’ motion to modify the Court's scheduling order of January 23, 2012 is
GRANTED;

///

27
28

2

1

2.

2

The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
June 29, 2012 to September 29, 2012, for all parties to this action; and

3

3.

4

All other provisions of the Court's January 23, 2012 scheduling order remain the
same.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:
6i0kij

June 26, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3