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)
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?