Fields v. Masiel et al

Filing 68

ORDER Granting Defendants' 66 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/22/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE MASIEL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01699-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 66)
Dispositive Motion Deadline: June 27, 2014

17

I.

Introduction

18

Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

20

Defendants Masiel, Aguirre, and Hernandez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

21

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule, which was

22

filed on March 27, 2014. (ECF No. 66.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. The motion is deemed

23

submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

24

II.

Procedural Background

25

On January 23, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that

26

order, discovery closed on September 23, 2013, and the deadline to file dispositive motions ended on

27

December 2, 2013. (ECF No. 44.)

28
1

1

On January 17, 2014, the Court extended the discovery deadline to February 28, 2014, and the

2

dispositive motion deadline to April 28, 2014. The deadlines were extended to resolve then-pending

3

discovery motions. (ECF No. 63.)

4

Following extension of the deadlines, on February 5, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

5

submit further discovery responses within thirty days. (ECF No. 64.) However, on March 17, 2014,

6

Defendants filed a motion for sanctions based on Plaintiff’s reported failure to provide the

7

supplemental responses ordered by the Court. (ECF No. 65.) On April 21, 2014, the Court ordered

8

Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ motion for sanctions within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 67.)

9

The deadline to respond has not expired.

10

On March 27, 2014, during pendency of the motion for sanctions, Defendants also filed the

11

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

12

dispositive motion deadline and, if necessary, reset the deadline after ruling on Defendants’ motion for

13

sanctions. In the alternative, Defendants request that the Court extend the dispositive motion deadline

14

until at least seventy days after the Court issues a ruling on Defendants’ motion for sanctions. (ECF

15

No. 66.) Plaintiff has not opposed the request.

16

III.

Discussion

17

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the

18

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the

19

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

20

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met

21

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry

22

should end. Id.

23

Defendants indicate that they cannot complete a motion for summary judgment without

24

Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery responses. Additionally, Defendants indicate that a summary

25

judgment motion may be unnecessary if the Court imposes dismissal sanctions. Based on the pending

26

sanctions motion, the dispositive motion deadline cannot be met despite Defendants’ apparent

27

diligence. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order.

28
2

1

Defendants have requested that the Court either vacate the deadline and reset it, if necessary,

2

after the motion for sanctions has been resolved or that the Court extend the dispositive motion

3

deadline an additional seventy days after resolution of the sanctions motion. At this time, the Court

4

declines Defendants’ invitation to vacate the dispositive motion deadline in its entirety. Instead, the

5

Court will extend the current deadline an additional sixty days to June 27, 2014.

6

IV.

Conclusion and Order

7

Based on the above, Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule is GRANTED. The

8

dispositive motion deadline is extended to June 27, 2014.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 22, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3