Tracy Taylor v. Hubbard et al

Filing 111

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 109 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/15/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACY TAYLOR,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

SUSAN HUBBARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00404-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 109)

Plaintiff Tracy Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

18

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 14, 2013, Defendants filed the instant

19

motion to modify the scheduling order. Defendants request that the Court vacate the current deadline

20

of May 27, 2013, for the filing of dispositive motions, and extend the deadline, as necessary, for 60

21

days after the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 109.) Given the

22

nature of the request, it is unnecessary to await a response from Plaintiff and the Court deems the

23

motion submitted.

24

A scheduling may be modified only for good cause and with the court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ.

25

P. 16(b). Good cause requires a showing of due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

26

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show

27

due diligence, then the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify.

28

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).
1

1

In this case, Defendants indicate that they have been diligent in litigating this case and the

2

parties have completed all discovery, including written discovery and deposition of the Plaintiff. The

3

only remaining pretrial deadline in this action is the filing of dispositive motions no later than May 27,

4

2013. (ECF No. 60.) Defendants contend that this deadline should be continued until after the Court

5

has ruled on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. Defendants explain that a ruling on the motion

6

to dismiss will define the scope of any motion for summary judgment and will preserve time, money

7

and judicial resources.

8

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

9

Defendants’ motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline an additional sixty (60) days

10

after the Court’s ruling on the pending motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 15, 2013

14

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

15

A. McAuliffe

10c20kb8554

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2