Villescas v. Dotson et al

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND SETTING NEW DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES re 35 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/3/2015. (Discovery due by 5/5/2015. Dispositive Motions filed by 7/5/2015). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
M.T. DOTSON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02068-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER AND
SETTING NEW DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE
MOTION DEADLINES
[ECF No. 35]

Plaintiff Alberto Villescas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery and dispositive motion
deadline. On February 2, 2015, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition.
Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

16(b)(4). AThe schedule may be modified >if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

23

party seeking the extension.=@ Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th

24

Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). AIf

25

the party seeking the modification >was not diligent, the inquiry should end= and the motion to modify

26

should not be granted.@ Id.

27
28

Pursuant to the Court’s previous order granting Plaintiff’s request to extend the scheduling
order, the deadline for completion of discovery is March 5, 2015. (ECF No. 29.) In his present
1

1

request, Plaintiff submits that a further extension of the discovery deadline is necessary because the

2

case involves multiple defendants, defense counsel required an extension of time to respond to

3

Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and Plaintiff needs to conduct further discovery after Defendants answer

4

Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s present request to further extend the deadline. Defense

5
6

counsel indicates that “[t]his is a document-intensive case (as far as pro se prisoner cases go), and after

7

Plaintiff propounded his first set of discovery requests in late-November, he graciously agreed to

8

stipulate to an extension after defense counsel explained that gathering all relevant documents was

9

taking longer than expected. Recently, Defendants served their responses to Plaintiff’s first set of

10

discovery requests.” (ECF NO. 36, Mot. at 1.)
On the basis of good cause, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to extend the

11
12

discovery deadline to and including May 5, 2015, and the correlating dispositive motion deadline is

13

extended to July 5, 2015. All other provisions of the Court’s April 25, 2014, remain in full force and

14

effect.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

18

February 3, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2