Zavala v. Chrones et al

Filing 70

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion To Modify Scheduling Order (Doc. 68 ), Dispositive Motion Deadline: March 15, 2012, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/15/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

KEITH ZAVALA,

9
10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01352-DLB PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER (DOC. 68)

v.
CHRIS CHRONES, et al.,

Dispositive Motion Deadline: March 15, 2012

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Keith Zavala (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

16

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

18

against Defendants S. Chandler, Chris Chrones, S. Kays, C. Martin, D. Smith, and Soto. Pending

19

before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the September 14, 2010 Scheduling Order,

20

filed June 30, 2011. Doc. 68. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

21

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

22

court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller

23

v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 16, a pretrial scheduling order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good

25

cause,” and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d

26

1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Although “the existence or degree of prejudice to the party

27

opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the

28

inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
1

1

On September 13, 2010, Defendant C. Martin filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

2

The Court issued a discovery and scheduling order on September 14, 2010. Defendant Soto filed

3

an answer on October 13, 2010. The Court ordered Defendant Soto to comply with the

4

September 14, 2010 Scheduling Order. The dispositive motion deadline for Defendants Martin

5

and Soto is currently July 25, 2011.

6

On May 4, 2011, Defendants Chandler, Chrones, Kays, and Smith filed their answer. The

7

Court then issued a second discovery and scheduling order on May 5, 2011, which applied to

8

those Defendants only. Defendants Chandler, Chrones, Kays, and Smith have a dispositive

9

motion deadline of March 15, 2012. Discovery has also just opened regarding these Defendants.

10

Defendants request that Defendants Martin and Soto be placed on the same schedule as

11

the other Defendants. Defendants contend that it is more judicially efficient to place all

12

Defendants on the same dispositive motion deadline. The Court agrees. Judicial economy

13

supports a modification as to the dispositive motion deadline for Defendants Martin and Soto.

14

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion, filed June 30, 2011, is

15

GRANTED as stated herein. The dispositive motion deadline for all Defendants is March 15,

16

2012.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 15, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2