Fields v. Masiel et al
Filing
76
ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 74 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/27/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN E. FIELDS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
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. 74)
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.
Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the schedule, which was
21
22
filed on June 16, 2014. (ECF No.74.) The motion is deemed submitted.1 Local Rule 230(l).
23
II.
Procedural Background
24
On January 23, 2013, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that
25
order, discovery closed on September 23, 2013, and the deadline to file dispositive motions ended on
26
December 2, 2013. (ECF No. 44.)
27
1
28
As Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a modification of the scheduling order, it is unnecessary to wait for a response.
Local Rule 230(l).
1
On January 17, 2014, the Court extended the discovery deadline to February 28, 2014, and the
1
2
dispositive motion deadline to April 28, 2014. The deadlines were extended to resolve then-pending
3
discovery motions. (ECF No. 63.)
On April 22, 2014, the Court extended the dispositive motion deadline to June 27, 2014,
4
5
pending resolution of Defendants’ motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 68.)
Thereafter, on April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to submit
6
7
his discovery responses. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for an extension of time on
8
May 12, 2014. (ECF No. 71.) On May 20, 2014, the Court directed Defendants to file a response to
9
Plaintiff’s pending motions. (ECF No. 72.) Defendants filed a response on June 5, 2014. (ECF No.
10
73.) Shortly thereafter, on June 16, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion to vacate the dispositive
11
motion deadline and, if necessary, reset it after resolution of the motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 74.)
12
III.
Discussion
13
Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the
14
judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the
15
diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
16
609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met
17
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry
18
should end. Id.
Defendants indicate that they are awaiting resolution of the pending motion for sanctions,
19
20
along with Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time to supplement his discovery responses before
21
proceeding with any motion for summary judgment. Defendants indicate that a summary judgment
22
motion may be unnecessary if the Court imposes dismissal sanctions.
Based on the pending motions, the Court finds that the dispositive motion deadline cannot be
23
24
met despite Defendants’ apparent diligence and Defendants have established good cause to modify the
25
Discovery and Scheduling Order.
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
IV.
Conclusion and Order
2
Based on the above, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED. The
3
dispositive motion deadline is VACATED. As necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the
4
dispositive motion deadline following resolution of the pending motions.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
June 27, 2014
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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?