Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 56

ORDER Granting 54 Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Serve Initial Disclosures; ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/29/16. Discovery due by 6/8/2016, Dispositive Motions filed by 8/8/2016. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
STROME, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No. 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE INITIAL
DISCLOSURES
(Document 54)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND
SCHEUDLING ORDER
(Document 55)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action.

20
21
22
23

The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on November 10, 2015. Pursuant to the
order, initial disclosures were due on December 28, 2015. Motions based on failure to exhaust are
due on February 8, 2016, the deadline to amend is March 9, 2016, the discovery deadline is April 8,
2016, and dispositive motions are due by June 7, 2016.

24

At this time, not all Defendants have appeared in this action.

25

On January 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to serve his initial disclosures.

26
27

On January 26, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling
Order.

28
1

1
2

The Court deems the matters suitable for decision without further briefing. Local Rule
230(l).

3

DISCUSSION

4

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ.

5

P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of

6

the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

7

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)).

8

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply

9

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for

10

seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was

11

not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302

12

F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

13

Plaintiff requests additional time to file his initial disclosures because his legal property was

14

confiscated after an evidentiary hearing in his other action in this Court, and he therefore missed the

15

December 28, 2015, deadline.
Defendants acknowledge Plaintiff’s request for additional time and do not oppose it. Rather,

16
17

they request a sixty-day extension of the exhaustion deadline and the dispositive motion deadline

18

based on Plaintiff’s failure, and because (1) they have propounded exhaustion-related discovery that

19

will not be due prior to the February 8, 2016, exhaustion-motion deadline; and (2) not all Defendants

20

have appeared in this action.

21

The Court finds that good cause exists and the motions are GRANTED. The Court will (1)

22

extend time for Plaintiff’s initial disclosures; and (2) extend the remaining deadlines by sixty-days.1

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

1

Although Defendants request an extension of only the exhaustion motion and dispositive motion deadline, the Court
will extend the deadline to amend and the discovery deadline, as well.

2

1

The new dates are as follows:

2

Plaintiff’s initial disclosures:

February 29, 2016

3

Motions based on exhaustion:

April 8, 2016

4

Deadline to amend:

May 9, 2016

5

Discovery deadline:

June 8, 2016

6

Dispositive motion deadline:

August 8, 2016

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 29, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3