Lipsey v. Reddy et al

Filing 71

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 70 Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/6/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. REDDY, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY
AND SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. No. 70)

Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling

20

order, filed on December 4, 2018. (Doc. No. 70.) Defendants seek to extend the dispositive

21

motion deadline, as non-exhaustion discovery has been stayed in this case, and the Court has not

22

yet ruled upon the pending motion for summary judgment for the failure to exhaust

23

administrative remedies.

24

A district court has the inherent power to modify the due dates on its docket. A

25

scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the Court.

26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has

27

shown good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the

28

modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

1

1

The Court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ motion here. A ruling on the pending

2

summary judgment motion may eliminate, or reduce, the need for additional discovery and any

3

dispositive motion(s) on the merits of this action. Judicial economy and resources are best

4

served by amending the discovery and scheduling order to allow for a final determination on the

5

pending summary judgment motion. Furthermore, Defendants have been diligent in defending

6

this action, having not yet requested any modifications of the scheduling order and pursuing their

7

summary judgment motion in a timely fashion. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced, as Plaintiff has

8

not had an opportunity to conduct merits-based discovery yet, and therefore all parties will

9

benefit from a modification of the discovery and scheduling order to effectively litigate this

10

action.

11

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

13

Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, filed on

December 4, 2018 (Doc. No. 70) is granted;

14

2.

The dispositive motion deadline of December 13, 2018 is vacated; and

15

3.

The discovery deadline and dispositive motion deadlines will be reset after a final

16

ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for the failure to exhaust administrative

17

remedies, if necessary.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 6, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2