Jones v. Arnette, et al.

Filing 77

ORDER GRANTING 74 Defendants Arnett, Flores, Gonzales, and Keener's 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 4/8/2021. New Discovery Deadline: 6/5/2021. New Dispositive Motions Deadline: 8/5/2021. All other provisions of the courts 11/6/2020 Discovery and Scheduling Order remain the same. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEREMY JONES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
ARNETTE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ARNETT,
FLORES, GONZALES, AND KEENER’S
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER
(ECF No. 74.)

16

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

17

New Discovery Deadline:

18

New Dispositive Motions Deadline: August 5, 2021

June 5, 2021

19
20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Jeremy Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

24

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act

25

(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

26

filed on September 10, 2018, on (1) Plaintiff’s ADA claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener,

27

Gonzales, Flores, Arnett, Zamora, and Lopez, in their official capacities; (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth

28

Amendment conditions of confinement claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and
1

1

Gonzales; and (3) Plaintiff’s due process claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and

2

Gonzales. (ECF No. 33.)

3

On November 6, 2020, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing

4

pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of April 6, 2021, and a

5

dispositive motions deadline of June 6, 2021. (ECF No. 59.) On April 1, 2021, defendants

6

Arnett, Flores, Gonzales, and Keener (“Defendants”) filed a motion to modify the Scheduling

7

Order. (ECF No. 74.)

8

II.

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Defendants request a sixty-day extension of the discovery and dispositive motions

18

deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order due to the fact that Plaintiff’s Second

19

Amended Complaint names seven defendants but only four of them have been served and

20

answered the complaint. Defendants seek an extension of time to decide whether the Attorney

21

General’s Office will represent defendants who were recently served or still to be served.

22

Defendants also request additional time to take Plaintiff’s deposition, which has been noticed but

23

not yet taken.

24

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

25

the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. Defendants have shown that even with the exercise

26

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

27

the Discovery and Scheduling Order filed by defendants Arnett, Flores, Gonzales, and Keener

28

shall be granted.
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed on April 1, 2021, is GRANTED;
2.

6
7

The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from April 6, 2021 to
June 5, 2021 for all parties to this action;

3.

8
9

Defendants Arnett, Flores, Gonzales, and Keener’s motion to modify the court’s

The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from
June 6, 2021 to August 5, 2021 for all parties to this action; and

4.

10

All other provisions of the court’s November 6, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling
Order remain the same.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 8, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3