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)
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?