Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 70

ORDER Granting Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order; ORDER Extending Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Dispositive Motions for all Parties, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/8/16. New Discovery Due by 3/7/2017. New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 5/6/2017. (Gonzalez, R)

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 DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER
(ECF No. 66.)

vs.
D. DAVEY, 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: May 6, 2017

15

Defendants.

March 7, 2017

19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

with the First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D.

26

Davey, A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively,

27

“Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.) This case is

28

now in the 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.)

5

On November 30, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and

6

Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 66.)

7

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

(9th Cir. 2002).

17

Defendants assert that they are tasked with responding to numerous discovery requests

18

because to date, Plaintiff has served Defendants with more than five hundred and fifty

19

discovery requests. (De La Torre-Fennell Decl., ECF No. 66 ¶5.) Defense counsel declares

20

that “[t]hese discovery requests are voluminous, seek information dating back to 1989, and

21

require speaking with each of the seven Defendants, as well as conducting an in-depth review

22

of Plaintiff’s voluminous C-File.” (Id. ¶6.) Defense counsel declares that she immediately

23

began reviewing the discovery and has completed many of the responses; however, there are

24

more responses to complete, and Defendants have not had the opportunity to prepare and serve

25

Plaintiff with their discovery requests, or to prepare for and conduct Plaintiff’s deposition. (Id.

26

¶¶7, 8.). Defendants request a sixty-day extension of the discovery cut-off and motion to

27

compel deadlines, and a sixty-day extension of the dispositive motions deadline from the date

28

the Court allows Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests.
2

1

The Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines for the parties to conduct discovery

2

and file dispositive motions. Defendants have shown diligence in conducting a voluminous

3

amount of discovery. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling

4

Order shall be granted.

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 November 30, 2016, is GRANTED;

2.

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

10

compel, is extended from January 6, 2017 to March 7, 2017 for all parties to

11

this action;

12

3.

13
14

The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
March 7, 2017 to May 6, 2017 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:

December 8, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3