Gomez v. Braun et al.

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/11/17 granting 36 motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. Plaintiffs deposition is to be completed by June 14, 2017. Plaintiffs deposition is to be completed by June 14, 2017. Any discovery motion relative to the depositions listed above is to be filed by June 14, 2017. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before September 14, 2017. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517
Attorney General of California
PETER A. MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
PETER A. MESHOT, State Bar No. 117061
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Braun
and Dr. Majumdar

8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

12
13
NEXIS RENE GOMEZ,

2:15-cv-2523-KJN (PC)

14
Plaintiff, ORDER MODIFYING DISCOVERY AND
SCHEDULING ORDER

15
v.
16
17
18

Judge:
Hon. Kendall J. Newman
Trial Date:
Not Set
Action Filed: February 25, 2016

D. BRAUN, et al.,
Defendants.

19
20

Defendants Dr. Braun and Dr. Majumdar moved this Court for an order a limited

21

modification of the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order of January 4, 2017 (ECF No. 34),

22

including the dates/deadlines for conducting the depositions of Plaintiff and up to three non-

23

expert witnessed whose identities plaintiff may establish in his deposition, and for filing

24

discovery motions relative to those depositions. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”
Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).
Defendants have shown good cause to continue the deadline for discovery based on the
unexpected medical leave of former defense counsel. Defendants’ request to extend the
discovery deadline to June 14, 2017, is granted. In light of this extension, the dispositive motions
deadline is continued to September 14, 2017. In all other respects, the January 4, 2017 discovery
and scheduling order remains in effect.
GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, Defendants’ motion is granted as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s deposition is to be completed by June 14, 2017;
2. The depositions of up to three non-expert witnesses who plaintiff may identify in his
deposition as having knowledge to support his claims are to be completed by June 14, 2017;
3. Any discovery motion relative to the depositions listed above is to be filed by June 14,
2017; and
4. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before
September 14, 2017.

17
18

Dated: May 11, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/gome2523.16b