Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting 77 Motion to modify Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/24/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN E. RANSOM 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. STROME, et al., 15 Case No. 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-DLB PC ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT STROME’S MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEUDLING ORDER (Document 77) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 17 18 rights action. 19 The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on November 10, 2015. 20 Defendants Clark, Dougherty, Faldon, Gill, Hayward, Herrera, Kaiser, McCabe, Molina, 21 Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Rouch, Sao, and Torres filed a motion for partial summary judgment on April 22 8, 2016. The motion is pending. On May 4, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to vacate the dates in the Discovery 23 24 and Scheduling Order and stay discovery until resolution of the pending motion for partial summary 25 judgment. The dates were not vacated as to Defendant Strome because, at that time, she was not a 26 party to the motion. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 2 On May 6, 2016, Defendant Strome joined in the pending motion for partial summary judgment. 3 4 Defendant Strome requested that the Court stay discovery on May 20, 2016. The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without further briefing. Local Rule 230(l). 5 DISCUSSION 6 Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of 8 the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 9 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 10 “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply 11 additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for 12 seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was 13 not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 14 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 15 Defendant Strome has now joined in the pending motion for partial summary judgment, and 16 the Court finds good cause to vacate the dates applicable to her in the April 11, 2016, order. As the 17 Court noted in the May 4, 2016, order, if the partial motion for summary judgment is granted, it will 18 greatly narrow the claims remaining in this action and avoid a large amount of potentially 19 unnecessary discovery. A stay at this time will not severely prejudice Plaintiff.1 Accordingly, Defendant Strome’s motion is GRANTED. The Court VACATES the dates in 20 21 the April 11, 2016, order modifying the Discovery and Scheduling Order. Once the Court rules on 22 the pending motion for partial summary judgment, it will issue an amended scheduling order 23 allowing additional time for discovery related to the remaining claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 25 May 24, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 1 28 In the November 10, 2015, Discovery and Scheduling Order, the Court explained that if the parties believe that discovery related to exhaustion is necessary, they may request such discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) within thirty days of the date of service of any motion for summary judgment related to exhaustion. 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?