Suarez v. Cate, et. al.

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 06/02/16 ordering Defendants motion to modify the discovery and scheduling orderand vacate the previous scheduling order (ECF No. 93) is granted. A new discovery andscheduling order will be issued once a final determination on Defendants Motion for Judgmenton the Pleadings is made, providing the Parties with 90 days to conduct discovery and 120 days tofile any dispositive motions. Accordingly, defendants motion for a protective order 90 and request for an extension of time 91 are denied as moot. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No. 2:12-cv-2048 KJM EFB (PC)
MAHER SUAREZ,

12

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

CATE, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order

19

and vacate the previous scheduling order (ECF No. 93) is granted. A new discovery and

20

scheduling order will be issued once a final determination on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment

21

on the Pleadings is made, providing the Parties with 90 days to conduct discovery and 120 days to

22

file any dispositive motions. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for a protective order (ECF No.

23

90) and request for an extension of time (ECF No. 91) are denied as moot.

24

Dated: June 2, 2016.

25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order (2:12-cv-2048 KJM EFB (PC))