(PC) White-Soto v. Starr
ORDER GRANTING in Defendant's 43 Motion to Modify Discovery and Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/20/2020. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STARR, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00457-NONE-BAM (PC)
ORDER GRANTING IN DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND
(ECF No. 43)
Plaintiff Yasyn White-Soto (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against
Defendant Starr for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in
violation of the First Amendment.
On January 9, 2020, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order setting the
deadline for filing all dispositive motions (other than a motion for summary judgment for failure
to exhaust) for November 19, 2020. (ECF No. 21.) On June 18, 2020, Defendant filed a motion
for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
(ECF No. 33.) The motion is not yet fully briefed.
On November 19, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to modify the Court’s
discovery and scheduling order to vacate the merits-based dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No.
43.) The Court finds a response unnecessary and the motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule
Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and
with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily
considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was
not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.
Defendant states that good cause exists to grant the motion because if the Court grants
Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment, the case would be dismissed, and it would
be unnecessary for the parties to file merits-based dispositive motions or oppositions and replies
to those motions. (ECF No. 43-1.) It would also be unnecessary for the Court to expend its
resources considering the merits-based dispositive motions. This would potentially save the
Court’s and parties’ resources. Defendant therefore requests that the remaining deadlines in the
discovery and scheduling order be vacated, to be re-set as needed after the Court rules on
Defendant’s exhaustion motion. (Id.)
Having considered Defendant’s moving papers, the Court finds good cause to modify the
merits-based dispositive motion deadline in this action. The Court finds it would be an efficient
use of the resources of the Court and the parties to address any exhaustion issues prior to reaching
the merits of this action. Finally, the Court finds that the continuance granted here will not result
in prejudice to Plaintiff, where the exhaustion-based summary judgment motion remains pending
and is not yet fully briefed.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order, (ECF No.
43), is HEREBY GRANTED. The dispositive motion deadline is VACATED. As necessary and
appropriate, the Court will reset the deadline following resolution of the pending motion for
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 20, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?