Cida v. Lee et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/18/18 GRANTING 47 Defendants' motion. The discovery and dispositive motions deadlines set in the 9/08/17 scheduling order 43 are VACATED. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADRIAN CIDA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-2289 MCE KJN P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

BONNIE LEE, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On January 16, 2018, defendants filed a

18

motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the deadline for discovery and dispositive

19

motions, due to the pendency of defendants’ motion for summary judgment alleging plaintiff

20

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendants request extension of the discovery

21

deadline nunc pro tunc because the discovery deadline expired on December 29, 2017.

22

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.”

23

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

24

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good

25

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified

26

‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”

27

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

28

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).
1

1

Defendants have demonstrated good cause and diligence to extend the discovery and

2

dispositive motions deadlines. Defendants’ motion is granted. If defendants’ motion for

3

summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion is denied, the court will issue a revised scheduling

4

order to provide new deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions on the merits.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 47) is granted;

7

2. The discovery and dispositive motions deadlines set in the September 8, 2017

8
9

scheduling order (ECF No. 43) are vacated; and
3. The court will issue a revised scheduling order, if appropriate, following resolution of

10

the pending motion for summary judgment.

11

Dated: January 18, 2018

12
13
14
/cw/cida2289.16b

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2