Jimenez v. Alcala et al

Filing 17

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time 16 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/4/11. (Verduzco, M)

(PC) Jimenez v. Alcala et al

Doc. 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. (Doc. 16) S. ALCALA, et al., Defendants. _________________________________/ On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file motions for the attendance of witnesses. (Doc. 16.) Pursuant to the Court's second scheduling order issued March 15, 2011, motions for the attendance of witnesses are due no later than April 15, 2011. (Doc. 15.) However, Plaintiff indicates that he is unable to meet that deadline because he did not receive the Court's second scheduling order until just recently on March 26, 2011, and Plaintiff is currently having difficulty locating certain prisoners whom he anticipates calling as witnesses. (Doc. 16 at 1.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a pretrial scheduling order "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Good cause exists where the party seeking modification demonstrates that it cannot meet the deadlines set forth in the court's order despite the party's diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). "Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVIER JIMENEZ, Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:09-cv-01359 JLT (PC) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Id. (internal citation omitted). Here, given the circumstances presented by Plaintiff in his motion, the Court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order in this case. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's March 31, 2011 motion for an extension of time to file motions for the attendance of witnesses (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. 2. The Court's March 15, 2011 scheduling order is modified as follows: a. Motions for the attendance of witnesses, if any, must be filed on or before May 16, 2011; and b. 3. Oppositions, if any, must be filed on or before May 31, 2011.

No other dates set forth in the Court's March 15, 2011 scheduling order are affected by this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 4, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2