Fields v. Rosenthal

Filing 40

ORDER Granting Motion To Modify Scheduling Order (Doc. 36 ), ORDER Extending Discovery And Dispositive Motions Deadlines For All Parties To This Action New Discovery Cut-Off Date: 11/18/2013, New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 01/17/2014, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/26/2013. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:10-cv-01764-GSA-PC KEVIN E. FIELDS, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 36.) vs. RICHARD ROSENTHAL, 15 ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINES FOR ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION Defendant. 16 New Discovery Cut-Off Date: 17 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 01/17/2014 11/18/2013 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 21 ' 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by civil complaint at the Kings County Superior Court on 22 August 11, 2010 (Case #10-C0309). On September 23, 2010, defendant Richard Rosenthal 23 (ADefendant@) removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(b). (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the Second Amended 25 Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 22, 2012, against Defendant Rosenthal for retaliation, in 26 violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 17.) 27 On December 17, 2012, the Court issued a Scheduling Order establishing deadlines of 28 August 17, 2013 for completion of discovery, and October 28, 2013 for the parties to file 1 1 pretrial dispositive motions. (Doc. 26.) On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to 2 modify the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 36.) Defendant has not opposed the motion. 3 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 4 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 6 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 7 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 8 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 9 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the 10 scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not 11 grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 12 (9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the court=s deadline date for discovery by 13 demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 14 Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery deadline because further discovery is 15 necessary to develop facts sufficient to prove his case should it proceed to trial. For example, 16 Plaintiff declares that he needs to identify witnesses who were present when the incident in the 17 law library occurred, and that he is recovering from spine surgery and taking morphine, “which 18 alters my mind state.” (Motion, Doc. 36 at 4 :22-25.) 19 The Court finds good cause to extend the discovery deadline in this action for ninety 20 days. The Court also finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions deadline for all 21 parties. Thus, good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order shall 22 be granted. 23 III. CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. 26 Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Court's Scheduling Order, filed on September 3, 2013, is GRANTED; 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2. The deadline for the completion of discovery, including filing of motions to 2 compel, is extended from August 17, 2013 to November 18, 2013 for all parties 3 to this action; 4 3. 5 The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from October 28, 2013 to January 17, 2014 for all parties to this action; and 6 4. 7 All other provisions of the court's December 17, 2012 Scheduling Order remain the same. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 12 13 14 September 26, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 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?