Garcia v. Clark, et al.

Filing 62

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order 55 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/15/11. Discovery Cut-Off Date: 1/13/12. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

WILLIAM P. GARCIA,

10
11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00447-LJO-DLB PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF
SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
KEN CLARK, et al.,

(DOC. 55)
Defendants.

Discovery Cut-off Date: January 13, 2012
/

15
16

Plaintiff William P. Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17

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

18

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

19

his first amended complaint against Defendants K. Allison, F. Diaz, D. Ibarra, S. Knight, C.

20

Palmer, R. Santos, R. Tolson, K. Turner, and C. Walters. Pending before the Court is

21

Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, filed September 26, 2011. Doc. 55.

22

Plaintiff filed his opposition on October 7, 2011. Doc. 57. Defendants filed their reply on

23

October 17, 2011. Doc. 59. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

24

Defendants seek a modification of sixty days from the date of service of this order. The

25

decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson

26

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

27

Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a

28

pretrial scheduling order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Defendants’ counsel will be unable to comply with the deadline because of a jury trial in

6

Davis v. Prison Health Services, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-02629-SI, in the Northern District of

7

California. Jury trial in that action is set to commence on November 28, 2011. Defendants’

8

counsel alludes to “the press of other matters” as the reason she cannot meet the discovery cut-off

9

deadline. Stocker Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff, however, does not oppose Defendants’ motion, and

10

instead requests more than sixty days in order for Plaintiff to receive his discovery requests. Pl.’s

11

Opp’n ¶ 4, Doc. 57. The Court finds that Defendants have presented good cause for modification.

12

By separate order, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended motion to compel. Sixty days

13

for service of discovery requests, and for the filing of motions to compel, is more than sufficient

14

time for all parties to complete discovery. No further extensions of time regarding discovery will

15

be granted.

16

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for modification of the

17

scheduling order, filed September 26, 2011, is GRANTED. The discovery cut-off date, including

18

the filing of any motions to compel, is January 13, 2012.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
3b142a

November 15, 2011

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2