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)

Download PDF
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?