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)

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