Sifuentes v. Ola, et al.

Filing 48

ORDER GRANTING 47 Defendant Ola's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/20/2020. Discovery due by 7/30/2020. Dispositive Motions filed by 9/30/2020. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIGUEL G. SIFUENTES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

1:16-cv-00241-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
OLA’S MOTION TO MODIFY
SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 47.)

DR. OLA, et al.,

16

ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY
DEADLINE AND DEADLINE TO FILE
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL
PARTIES

17

New Discovery Deadline:

18

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: Sept. 30, 2020

15

Defendants.

July 30, 2020

19
20
21
22
23

I.

BACKGROUND

24

Miguel G. Sifuentes (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

25

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended

26

Complaint filed on April 26, 2017, against defendant Dr. Ola (“Defendant”) for failure to provide

27

adequate medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 21.)

28
1

Plaintiff paid the filing fee on February 25, 2016. (Court Record.)
1

1

On October 15, 2019, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

2

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of April 15, 2020, and a

3

dispositive motions deadline of June 15, 2020. (ECF No. 43.) On April 17, 2020, Defendant

4

filed a motion to modify the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 47.)

5

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

6

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

8

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the

9

modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due

10

diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the

11

prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling

12

order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion

13

to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

14

Defendant requests at least a ninety-day extension of the discovery and dispositive

15

motions deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling order, on the grounds that given the

16

current COVID-19 crisis, it is not feasible to complete discovery or complete a dispositive motion

17

by the deadlines in the court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 47 at 2 and Declaration of Matthew

18

W. Roman at ¶¶ 4-9.)

19

The court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines in

20

the court’s Discovery and Scheduling order. Defendant has shown that even with the exercise of

21

due diligence, he cannot meet the requirements of the order. Therefore, the motion to modify the

22

Scheduling Order filed by defendant Dr. Ola shall be granted.

23

III.

CONCLUSION

24

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1.

26
27
28

Defendant Ola’s motion to modify the court’s Scheduling Order, filed on April
17, 2020, is GRANTED;

2.

The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from April 15, 2020 to
July 30, 2020 for all parties to this action;
2

1

3.

2
3

The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
June 15, 2020 to September 30, 2020 for all parties to this action; and

4.

4

All other provisions of the court’s October 15, 2019 Discovery and Scheduling
Order remain the same.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 20, 2020

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3