Torres v. Gutierrez et al
Filing
56
ORDER Granting Defendants' 53 Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 7/19/16. Dispositive Motions Deadline: 9/9/2016. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GUSTAVO TORRES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
ARRELLANO, et al.,
15
No. 1:15-cv-00575 DAD DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Document 53)
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff Gustavo Torres (“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.
19
Defendants filed their answer on January 12, 2016, and the action is now in discovery.
20
Pursuant to the January 13, 2016, Discovery and Scheduling Order, the dispositive motion
21
deadline is August 10, 2016.
On July 14, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling
22
23
Order. The Court deems the motion suitable for decision without further briefing. Local Rule
24
230(l).
25
Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R.
26
Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the
27
diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302
28
F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
1
1
609 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the
2
modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon
3
the moving party’s reasons for seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party
4
seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify
5
should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
6
Here, Defendants seek a thirty-day extension of the August 10, 2016, dispositive motion
7
deadline due to counsel’s heavy case load and upcoming travel schedule. Hemple Decl. ¶¶5-6.
8
Defendants have been diligent in litigating this action, and there is no indication that Plaintiff will
9
be prejudiced by a thirty-day extension.
10
11
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The dispositive motion deadline is
September 9, 2016.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
July 19, 2016
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?