Tilei v. McGuinness et al
ORDER GRANTING Joint 73 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/16/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI,
Case No. 1:10-cv-000069-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO
MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
McGUINNESS, et al.,
Plaintiff, Punaofo Tsugito Tilei, is a state prison inmate proceeding in forma pauperis in
this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding against Defendants C.M.O.
William J. McGuinness M.D., Jeremy Wang M.D., H. Hasrdsri M.D., Joseph Obriza M.D., Julian
Kim M.D., Jeffrey Neubarth M.D., N. Loadholt, FNP, and P. Rouch, FNP for deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Docs.
43, 44.) On June 12, 2017, the parties submitted a joint motion to modify the scheduling order
based on voluminous discovery requirements and Plaintiff’s counsel’s pending motion to
withdraw. (Docs. 71, 73.)
Modification of Scheduling Order
A party seeking modification of the schedule of a case must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil
Though the Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Dr. Hasrdsri, Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed Dr. Hasrdsri from the action. (Docs. 64, 65.) The Ninth Circuit found that Plaintiff did not
state a claim against Lisa Salinas (Doc. 43, p. 3) and she was dismissed from the action (Doc. 46).
Procedure 16(b)’s “good cause” standard. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause standard of Rule 16(b) is not nearly as liberal as that for
Rule 15 and focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party, id., and the reasons for
seeking modification, C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984
(9th Cir. 2011). If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence,
the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern
California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). The parties’ recitation of discovery
conducted thus far shows that both sides have exercised due diligence to satisfy the good cause
standard of Rule 16(b).2
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
The joint motion to modify the scheduling order, filed on June 12, 2017, (Doc. 73),
is GRANTED and the Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED as follows:
the Court stays further discovery and all deadlines, including completing
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, until the Court issues an order on
Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw; and
upon issuing an order on Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, the Court
will allow the parties an additional 120 days to resume and complete
discovery, and an additional 90 days thereafter to file a dispositive motion.
Other than the above modification of deadlines, all requirements of the December 1,
2016 Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 60) remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 16, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Since the motion was filed jointly and is being granted, the parties’ discovery efforts need not be restated here.
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?