Beyett v. O'Brien et al

Filing 48

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion For Modification Of Scheduling Order (Doc. 47 ), Dispositive Motion Deadline: August 8, 2011, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/28/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 LYNN CHARLES BEYETT,

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01367-DLB PC

9

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF
SCHEDULING ORDER

10

Plaintiff,
v.

11 V. O’BRIEN, et al.,
12
13

(DOC. 47)
Defendants.

Dispositive Motion Deadline: August 8, 2011
/

14
15

Plaintiff Lynn Charles Beyett (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding
17 against Defendants V. O’Brien and D. Ragan. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion
18 for modification of the scheduling order, filed July 6, 2011. Doc. 47.
19

On May 6, 2011, the Court set a dispositive motion filing deadline of July 6, 2011.

20 Defendants seek a modification up to and including August 8, 2011. Defendants’ counsel
21 contends that because of his involvement in opposing a motion for summary judgment, attending
22 mediation, and filing a reply brief in other actions, he was unable to meet the deadline in this
23 action.
24

The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district

25 court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller
26 v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
27 Procedure 16, a pretrial scheduling order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good
28 cause,” and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d
1

1 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Although “the existence or degree of prejudice to the party
2 opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the
3 inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
4 The Court finds good cause has been presented. Any further motion to modify the schedule is
5 heavily disfavored.
6

Good cause having been presented, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion

7 for modification of the scheduling order, filed July 6, 2011, is GRANTED. The deadline for
8 filing a dispositive motion is August 8, 2011.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:
3

July 28, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2