Masterson v. Killen et al

Filing 55

ORDER GRANTING Parties' 51 53 Requests to Modify Scheduling Order; ORDER EXTENDING Deadlines for All Parties to this Action signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/15/2015. New Discovery Deadline: 10/15/2015; New Dispositive Motions Deadline 12/15/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’
REQUESTS TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER
(ECF Nos. 51, 53.)

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:11-cv-01179-LJO-GSA-PC

DANIEL MASTERSON,

vs.
SUZANNE KILLEN, et al.,

15

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR
ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION

Defendants.

16

New Discovery Deadline: 10/15/15

17

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 12/15/15

18
19
20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Daniel Masterson (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

24

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the

25

Complaint commencing this action on July 18, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds

26

with Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint filed on November 22, 2013, against defendants

27

Suzanne Killen, Velva Rowell, Brad Hall, Michael Fisher, Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez, Kelly

28

Santoro, and Captain Randy Tolson for retaliation, and against defendants Suzanne Killen,
1

1

Velva Rowell, Brad Hall, Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez, Kelly Santoro, and Captain Randy

2

Tolson for conspiracy to retaliate against Plaintiff.1 (ECF No. 28.) On November 14, 2014, the

3

court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order, establishing pre-trial deadlines for the parties,

4

including a deadline of July 14, 2015 to complete discovery, including the filing of motions to

5

compel, and a deadline of September 24, 2015 for filing dispositive motions. (ECF No. 42.)

6

On July 8, 2015, Defendants filed a request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling

7

Order, to allow them time to re-schedule Plaintiff’s deposition. (ECF No. 51.) On July 13,

8

2015, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a motion to compel, which the

9

court construes as a request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 53.)
The parties’ requests to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order are now before the

10
11

court.

12

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

13

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.

14

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

15

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the

16

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due

17

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the

18

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the

19

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not

20

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

21

(9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the court=s deadline date for discovery by

22

demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

23

Defendants request an extension of the discovery deadline so they can re-schedule

24

Plaintiff’s deposition, following an unexpected court-reporter cancellation. Plaintiff requests

25

an extension of the discovery deadline to file a motion to compel, because he has not received

26

all of Defendants’ responses to his requests for admissions and interrogatories. The court finds

27
28

1

On June 30, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this action, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 31.)
2

1

good cause to extend the deadlines in this action for all parties. Thus, good cause appearing,

2

the parties’ motions to modify the Scheduling Order shall be granted.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

6
7

2015, is GRANTED;
2.

8
9

Defendants request to modify the Court's Scheduling Order, filed on July 8,

Plaintiff’s request to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order, filed on July 13,
2015, is GRANTED;

3.

The deadline for completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to

10

compel, is extended from July 14, 2015 to October 15, 2015, for all parties to

11

this action;

12

4.

13
14

The deadline for filing pretrial dispositive motions is extended from September
24, 2015 to December 15, 2015, for all parties to this action; and

5.

15

All other provisions of the court's November 14, 2014 Scheduling Order remain
the same.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 15, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3