Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 108

ORDER GRANTING Motion to Modify Scheduling Order; ORDER EXTENDING Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Dispositive Motions for All Parties, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/16/2018: New Discovery Deadline 5/29/2018, New Dispositive Motions Deadline 7/29/2018.(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC

STEWART MANAGO,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 104.)

vs.
D. DAVEY, et al.,

15

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

Defendants.

16

New Discovery Deadline:

17

05/29/18

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 07/29/18

18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

23

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

24

commencing this action on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the

25

First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D. Davey, A.

26

Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively, “Defendants”), on

27

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.) This case is currently in the

28

discovery phase.
1

1

On August 9, 2016, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

2

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of January 6, 2017, for the parties to

3

complete discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, and a deadline of March 7,

4

2017, for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (ECF No. 45.) These deadlines have been

5

extended more than once by the court, resulting in a discovery deadline of February 28, 2018,

6

and a dispositive motions deadline of April 30, 2018. (ECF Nos. 70, 85, 89, 102.)

7

On January 11, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to

8

extend the deadlines. (ECF No. 104.) Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion. The

9

motion is now submitted to the court. Local Rule 230 (l).

10

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not

18

grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087

19

(9th Cir. 2002).

20

Defendants request a ninety-day extension of the discovery deadline and the dispositive

21

motions deadline, until May 29, 2018, and July 29, 2018, respectively. Defense counsel filed a

22

declaration dated January 11, 2018, in which she sets forth Defendants’ diligence in attending

23

to the matters in this case. (ECF No. 104-1.) The court finds that Defendants have shown that

24

even with the exercise of due diligence they cannot meet the deadlines established in the

25

court’s previous Discovery and Scheduling Order. Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’

26

motion to modify the scheduling order. Therefore, the court finds good cause to extend the

27

deadlines for all parties to this action.

28

///
2

1

Good cause appearing, the discovery deadline shall be extended to May 29, 2018, for

2

all parties to this action, and the dispositive motions deadlines shall be extended to July 29,

3

2018, for all parties to this action. Any further requests for extension of deadlines should be

4

filed before the expiration of the existing deadlines.

5

III.

CONCLUSION

6

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

8
9

Defendants’ motion to modify the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order,
filed on January 11, 2018, is GRANTED;

2.

The deadline for the completion of discovery, including the filing of motions to

10

compel, is extended from February 28, 2018, to May 29, 2018, for all parties to

11

this action;

12

3.

13
14

The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
April 30, 2018, to July 29, 2018, for all parties to this action; and

4.

15

All other provisions of the Court’s August 9, 2016, Discovery and Scheduling
Order remain the same.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 16, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3