Lewis v. Cates et al

Filing 23

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRIAN DEVERICK LEWIS, 11 12 13 14 15 Case No.: 15cv791-DMS-MDD Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER v. CATES, et al., Defendants. [ECF No. 22] 16 17 On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the 18 Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff notes that July 10, 2017, is 19 the deadline by which all discovery must be completed in this matter 20 and requests an additional 60 days to meet his discovery obligations. 21 Plaintiff states he “is currently attempting to respond to Defendants 22 [sic] discovery request as well as completing his discovery request for 23 multiple Defendants in this matter.” (Id. at 2). He attaches a 24 declaration stating that he “need[s]” the additional time to fulfill his 25 discovery obligations. (Id. at 3). 1 15cv791-DMS-MDD 1 District Courts have broad discretion to “manage the discovery 2 process to facilitate prompt and efficient resolution of the lawsuit.” 3 Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599 (1988). Scheduling Orders 4 are issued pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure to limit the time to join parties, amend pleadings, complete 6 discovery and file motions. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(1)-(3). Once in place, 7 “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 8 consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” requirement 9 primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. 10 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 11 1992). A party demonstrates good cause for the modification by 12 showing that, even with the exercise of due diligence, he was unable to 13 meet the deadlines set forth in the order. See Zivkovic v. So. Cal. 14 Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2002). 15 Plaintiff has not shown good cause for modifying the Scheduling 16 Order. He does not identify what discovery has been completed, what 17 discovery remains pending, why the pending discovery has not already 18 been completed, or what discovery Plaintiff intends to complete if an 19 extension were granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED 20 without prejudice. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2017 23 24 25 2 15cv791-DMS-MDD

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?