Gonzalez v. Cate et al
Filing
41
ORDER GRANTING Motion to Modify Discovery Scheduling Order 40 ; ORDER EXTENDING Discovery Deadline for Limited Purpose Discussed in This Order; ORDER EXTENDING Dispositive Motions Deadline for All Parties to This Action, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/5/12: New Discovery Cut-Off Date: 05/06/2012; New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 07/14/2012. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ZACARIAS GONZALEZ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
1:09-cv-02149-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY
DISCOVERY/SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 40.)
vs.
14
15
ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE
FOR LIMITED PURPOSE DISCUSSED IN THIS
ORDER
GUINN, et al.,
16
17
ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
DEADLINE FOR ALL PARTIES TO THIS
ACTION
18
New Discovery Cut-Off Date:
05/06/2012
New Dispositive Motions Deadline:
07/14/2012
Defendants.
19
_________________________/
20
21
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
22
1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 30, 2009. (Doc. 1.)
23
This case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint, filed on December 6, 2010, against
24
defendant Guinn (“Defendant”) for failure to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth
25
Amendment. (Doc. 16.)
26
///
27
28
1
1
On July 6, 2011, the Court issued a Discovery/Scheduling Order establishing deadlines
2
of March 6, 2012 for completion of discovery, and May 14, 2012 for the parties to file pretrial
3
dispositive motions. (Doc. 28.) This case is presently in the discovery phase. On March 2,
4
2012, Defendant filed a motion to modify the Discovery/Scheduling Order to extend the
5
discovery and dispositive motions deadlines. (Doc. 40.) Defendant's motion to modify the
6
Discovery/Scheduling Order is now before the Court.
7
II.
8
9
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
10
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the
11
modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due
12
diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the
13
prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the
14
scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not
15
grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087
16
(9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the court’s deadline date for discovery by
17
demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
18
Defendant requests an extension of the discovery deadline of March 6, 2012, to allow
19
him to take Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant presents evidence that on February 22, 2012,
20
Defendant’s counsel ("Counsel") attempted to take Plaintiff’s deposition but discovered, at the
21
deposition, that Plaintiff does not speak English and was unable to participate in the deposition
22
without the assistance of an interpreter. (Declaration of David Brice, Doc. 40 at 5 ¶¶2, 5, 6.)
23
Counsel then suspended the deposition. (Id. ¶7.) Defendant also requests an extension of the
24
dispositive motions deadline, because the preparation of Defendant’s dispositive motion
25
requires Plaintiff’s deposition to be taken.
26
///
27
28
2
1
The Court finds that Defendant has shown due diligence in attempting to take Plaintiff’s
2
deposition before the expiration of the discovery deadline established by the Court's
3
Discovery/Scheduling Order. Therefore, the discovery deadline shall be extended for the
4
limited purpose of taking Plaintiff’s deposition. The Court also finds that Defendant has
5
presented good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline. Thus, good cause appearing,
6
Defendant's motion to modify the Discovery/Scheduling Order shall be granted.
7
III.
CONCLUSION
8
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1.
10
11
GRANTED;
2.
12
13
The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from March 6, 2012 to
May 6, 2012, for the limited purpose of Defendant taking Plaintiff’s deposition;
3.
14
15
Defendant’s motion to modify the Court's Discovery/Scheduling Order is
The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
May 14, 2012 to July 14, 2012, for all parties to this action; and
3.
16
All other provisions of the Court's July 6, 2011 Discovery/Scheduling Order
remain the same.
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij
March 5, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?