McClure v. Chen, et al.

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 25 Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order ; ORDERED that existing initial disclosure deadline is VACATED pending a ruling on Defendants' anticipated Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 03/19/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

GEORGE MCCLURE,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
vs.
C.K. CHEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00932 DAD DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER
[ECF No. 25]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff George McClure is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 14, 2016, Defendants filed a request to modify the discovery and scheduling
order. Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302

24
25
26
27

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should
end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

28

1

1
2
3
4
5

Defendants state that good cause exists to vacate the current deadline for initial
disclosures, because Defendants will be filing a dispositive motion on or about March 25, 2016,
that could potentially dispose of the entire case. Defendants state the motion for summary
judgment will be based on failure to state a claim, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and
qualified immunity. Given that the motion may dispose of some claims or the entire case, it will

6

be unclear to the parties what, if any, issues will remain for the purposes of proceeding with
7
8
9
10

initial disclosures. In light of the above, the Court finds good cause to modify the scheduling
order.
Accordingly, Defendants’ request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order is

11

GRANTED. The existing initial disclosure deadline is VACATED pending a ruling on

12

Defendants’ anticipated motion for summary judgment.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

March 19, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2