IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 18, 2011
IRWIN DOUGLAS, PLAINTIFF,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
This action is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On March 16, 2011, defendants filed an ex parte application to modify the status (pretrial scheduling) order in this action. Dckt. No. 64; see also Dckt. Nos. 24, 59. Specifically, defendants seek to continue the final pretrial conference and trial dates in light of the pending findings and recommendations, which recommend that summary judgment be granted for defendants and that this action be closed, but which have not yet been adopted or rejected by the district judge. See Dckt. No. 61.
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). "Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification." Id. Here, although defendants' ex parte application is not in strict compliance with the Local Rules,*fn1 the application is supported by good cause.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' ex parte application to modify the scheduling order, Dckt. No. 64, is granted.
2. The final pretrial conference, which is currently scheduled for April 6, 2011, is continued to July 6, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24. The parties shall file pretrial statements, as required by the November 10, 2009 status (pretrial scheduling) order, no later than June 22, 2011.
3. The June 7, 2011 trial date is vacated at this time. If the February 10, 2011 findings and recommendations are not adopted, a new trial date will be set before the assigned district judge.