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