Bryant v. Gallagher et al

Filing 93

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/19/2012 granting 92 Motion to modify the Scheduling Order to vacate the deadline for filing Dispositive Motions. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT, CASE NO. 1:11-cv-0446-LJO-BAM PC 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER TO VACATE THE DEADLINE FOR FILING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS (Doc. 92) v. 11 P. GALLAGHER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 / 14 Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 15 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 17, 2012, Defendants 16 filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. (Doc. 92.) 17 BACKGROUND 18 On February 22, 2012, the Court entered a Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that order, the 19 deadline to file pre-trial dispositive motions is December 31, 2012. (Doc. 50.) 20 On October 22, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to provide supplemental 21 responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents.1 (Doc. 77.) Defendants 22 believe that the outstanding discovery is directly relevant to the claims against them. 23 On December 6, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non24 opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel by January 5, 2013. The Court also warned Plaintiff 25 that his failure to file a response would result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure 26 27 1 28 On October 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a generalized motion to compel discovery. Doc. 78. 1 1 to prosecute. (Doc. 91.) 2 3 Due to the pending motion to compel, Defendants seek to vacate the December 31, 2012 deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Doc. 92.) 4 5 DISCUSSION A. 6 Legal Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order "may be modified 7 only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The "good cause" 8 standard "primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v. 9 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the 10 scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 11 extension.” Id. 12 B. 13 Analysis Defendants contend that there is good cause to modify the scheduling order because their 14 motion to compel will not be resolved until after the dispositive motion deadline has passed. 15 Defendants believe that the outstanding discovery contains information necessary to their 16 anticipated summary judgment motion. Defendants also note that if Plaintiff fails to comply with 17 the Court’s order, then the action will be dismissed, which will obviate the need for Defendants 18 to file a dispositive motion. The Court finds that good cause exists to modify the scheduling 19 order. Based upon the pleadings and the status of the case, the Court finds that it may rule on the 20 motion in the absence of plaintiff’s opposition. 21 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 22 For good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order is 23 GRANTED. The December 31, 2012 dispositive motion deadline is HEREBY VACATED. If 24 necessary and appropriate, the Court will reset the dispositive motion deadline upon resolution of 25 the pending motions to compel. 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10c20k December 19, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 2

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?