Brooks v. Felker

Filing 109

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/11/13 ordering defendants' 02/06/13 motion 108 is granted. The dispositive motion filing deadline is extended from 02/28/13 to 04/29/13. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

STEVEN DEXTER BROOKS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:08-cv-2512 KJM KJN P

T. FELKER, et al.,

14
15
16
17
18

Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On February 6, 2013,
defendants filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of

19

litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation

20

and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified

21

only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may

22

be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

23

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

24

(quoting Johnson., 975 F.2d at 607).

25
26

On June 14, 2012, the court issued its scheduling order. On September 25, 2012,
defendants were granted an extension of time in which to provide discovery responses, and the
1

1

scheduling order was revised to provide the parties additional time to provide discovery and file

2

motions to compel discovery responses, if necessary. The pretrial motions deadline was

3

continued to February 28, 2013.

4

Counsel for defendants states that the previously-assigned Deputy Attorney

5

General left the Correctional Law Section, and on January 18, 2013, the instant case was

6

reassigned. The newly-assigned Deputy Attorney General has not had adequate time to review

7

the pleadings and records, including three bankers boxes of discovery documents, and meet with

8

the defendants. Despite new counsel’s diligence, defendants have been unable to complete all

9

the work in preparation of filing all pretrial and dispositive motions. Counsel for defendants

10

avers that a motion for summary judgment would dispose of all, or most of, this case. (Dkt. No.

11

108-1 at 2.) Moreover, counsel declares that the evidence will show that at least three of the

12

defendants did not have the authority to end the lockdown at issue here.

13

Based on counsel’s declaration, the court finds good cause to extend the

14

dispositive motions deadline. Discovery is now closed. The dispositive motions filing deadline

15

is extended to April 29, 2013. If no timely dispositive motion is filed, the court will issue a

16

further scheduling order.

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Defendants’ February 6, 2013 motion (dkt. no. 108) is granted; and

19

2. The dispositive motions filing deadline is extended from February 28, 2013, to

20

April 29, 2013.

21

DATED: March 11, 2013

22
23

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25

broo2512.eot

26
2