McCoy v. Garikaparthi et al

Filing 57

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 56 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/27/18. Dispositive Motions filed by 4/19/2018. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LaKEITH L. McCOY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
GARIKAPARTHI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01495-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER
(ECF No. 56)
Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 19, 2018

16
Plaintiff LaKeith L. McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against

19

Defendants Garikaparthi, Steiber, Keeler, and Chavez (“Defendants”) for violation of Plaintiff’s

20

Eighth Amendment rights arising from the alleged deprivation of adequate food. On April 25,

21

2017, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that order, the dispositive

22

motion deadline is set for March 5, 2018.

23

On February 23, 2018, Defendants filed the instant motion to modify the dispositive

24

motion deadline set forth in the Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 51.) The Court finds

25

a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted.1 Local Rule 230(l).

26

///

27
1

28

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the inability to respond. If the Court grants the motion, it will extend the deadline
for either party to file a dispositive motion.

1

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and

1
2

with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily

3

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

4

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot

5

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was

6

not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

7

Defendants state that they have diligently completed discovery in this action and

8

anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment in this action. However, Defendants request an

9

extension of the deadline to file dispositive motions due to defense counsel’s two-week jury

10

service, subsequent illness, and the press of other business. In addition, defense counsel states

11

that Plaintiff has indicated that he would not oppose Defendants’ request for modification of the

12

scheduling order, and that he would be open to settlement discussions. Defendants request a

13

forty-five day extension of the current dispositive motion deadline, to April 19, 2018. (ECF No.

14

56.)

15

Having considered Defendants’ moving papers, the Court finds good cause for the brief

16

continuance of the dispositive motion deadline in this action. Defendants have been diligent in

17

completing discovery and working on the dispositive motion, but the relevant deadline cannot be

18

met due to defense counsel’s jury service, past illness, and deadlines in other pending cases. The

19

brief continuance will not result in measurable prejudice to Plaintiff or to witnesses in a matter

20

that has been pending since 2013. In addition, defense counsel states that Plaintiff has indicated a

21

willingness to participate in settlement discussions.

22

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order, (ECF No.

23

56), is HEREBY GRANTED. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to April 19, 2018.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 27, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2