IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 23, 2008
CURTIS LEE MORRISON, PLAINTIFF,
TOM CAREY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Defendants request an extension of time to serve discovery requests on plaintiff. The request necessarily includes a request to modify a deadline originally established by the scheduling order. Accordingly, the court construes defendants' motion as one to modify the scheduling order, which is governed by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A schedule may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to the scheduling order, requests for discovery were to be served not later than 60 days before the close of discovery on February 6, 2009.
Counsel for defendants asserts she could not timely serve discovery requests because she erroneously believed that discovery requests only needed to be served 45 days before the close of discovery and she was also preparing for trial in another case. Counsel is admonished that neither an attorney's workload nor her mistake as to scheduling requirements demonstrate that the attorney is unable to meet a court ordered deadline despite due diligence. However, in this case the court will exercise its discretion and grant plaintiff and defendants an extension until January 6, 2009 to serve discovery requests.
Accordingly, defendants' request is granted and the deadline for all parties for serving discovery requests is extended to January 6, 2009.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.