Lopez v. Adams et al

Filing 43

ORDER Denying 41 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/9/2010. (Verduzco, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAFAEL LOPEZ, 11 12 v. (Doc. 41) 13 DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to modify the Court's scheduling order, Defendants. / Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00808-LJO-DLB PC ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17 filed June 8, 2010. (Doc. 41, Defs.' Mot.) The Court set a dispositive motion deadline of June 18 14, 2010. (Doc. 39, Discovery and Scheduling Order filed August 4, 2009.) Defendants request 19 a thirty-day extension of time, to July 14, 2010. (Mot. 6:10-12.) Defense counsel learned on 20 June 3, 2010 that Defendant Masiel is on a pre-planned vacation until June 23, 2010. (Ellen Y. 21 Hung Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant will then work two consecutive shifts. (Id.) After June 24, 22 Defendant will go on another pre-planned vacation until July 1. (Id.) Defendants contend that 23 they will be severely prejudiced if this motion is not granted. (Mot. 5: 26-27.) 24 A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the Court's consent.

25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Defendants have not presented good cause. The Court issued its 26 scheduling order on August 4, 2009. Defendant Masiel's vacation was pre-planned. Defense 27 counsel thus has had ample opportunity to prepare. Defense counsel learning of Defendant 28 Masiel's vacation on June 3, 2010 indicates a lack of due diligence in preparing for the motion 1

1 for summary judgment. 2 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to modify

3 the scheduling order, file June 8, 2010, is DENIED. 4 5 3b142a 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

June 9, 2010

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE