Lewis v. Cates et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 22 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 7/6/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (fth)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRIAN DEVERICK LEWIS,
Case No.: 15cv791-DMS-MDD
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
MODIFY THE SCHEDULING
CATES, et al.,
[ECF No. 22]
On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the
Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff notes that July 10, 2017, is
the deadline by which all discovery must be completed in this matter
and requests an additional 60 days to meet his discovery obligations.
Plaintiff states he “is currently attempting to respond to Defendants
[sic] discovery request as well as completing his discovery request for
multiple Defendants in this matter.” (Id. at 2). He attaches a
declaration stating that he “need[s]” the additional time to fulfill his
discovery obligations. (Id. at 3).
District Courts have broad discretion to “manage the discovery
process to facilitate prompt and efficient resolution of the lawsuit.”
Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599 (1988). Scheduling Orders
are issued pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to limit the time to join parties, amend pleadings, complete
discovery and file motions. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(1)-(3). Once in place,
“[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's
consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” requirement
primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.
1992). A party demonstrates good cause for the modification by
showing that, even with the exercise of due diligence, he was unable to
meet the deadlines set forth in the order. See Zivkovic v. So. Cal.
Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for modifying the Scheduling
Order. He does not identify what discovery has been completed, what
discovery remains pending, why the pending discovery has not already
been completed, or what discovery Plaintiff intends to complete if an
extension were granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 6, 2017
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?