Boyce v. Fox et al

Filing 59

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/21/2018 GRANTING 58 Motion and VACATING the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines set in 54 Discovery and Scheduling Order. The court will issue a revised scheduling order, if appropriate, following resolution of the pending motion for summary judgment. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNELL BOYCE, 12 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-1743 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MICHAEL FOX, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel. On February 8, 2018, defendant 18 Wong filed a motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the deadline for discovery and 19 dispositive motions, due to the pendency of defendant’s motion for summary judgment alleging 20 plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendant requests extension of the 21 discovery deadline because the discovery deadline expires on February 9, 2018, and the 22 dispositive motions deadline expires on May 4, 2018, and plaintiff has not yet been deposed. 23 Defense counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel to ask whether counsel would stipulate to resetting 24 the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines so that defendant Wong could take plaintiff’s 25 deposition if the pending motion is denied, but plaintiff’s counsel would not so stipulate. (ECF 26 No. 58 at 2 n.1.) 27 28 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 1 1 quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 2 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 3 ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 4 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 5 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). 6 The pending summary judgment motion addresses only the issue of exhaustion of 7 administrative remedies and does not address the merits of plaintiff’s underlying claims. 8 Defendant demonstrates good cause and diligence to extend the discovery and dispositive 9 motions deadlines. Defendant’s motion is granted. If defendant’s motion for summary judgment 10 on the issue of exhaustion is denied, the court will issue a revised scheduling order to provide 11 new deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions on the merits. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Defendant Wong’s motion (ECF No. 58) is granted; 14 2. The discovery and dispositive motions deadlines set in the October 17, 2017 15 16 scheduling order (ECF No. 54) are vacated; and 3. The court will issue a revised scheduling order, if appropriate, following resolution of 17 the pending motion for summary judgment. 18 Dated: February 21, 2018 19 20 21 22 23 /boyc1743.16b 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?