UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 15, 2011
WILLIAM P. GARCIA,
KEN CLARK, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 55)
Discovery Cut-off Date: January 13, 2012
Plaintiff William P. Garcia ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on his first amended complaint against Defendants K. Allison, F. Diaz, D. Ibarra, S. Knight, C. Palmer, R. Santos, R. Tolson, K. Turner, and C. Walters. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to modify the scheduling order, filed September 26, 2011. Doc. 55. Plaintiff filed his opposition on October 7, 2011. Doc. 57. Defendants filed their reply on October 17, 2011. Doc. 59. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
Defendants seek a modification of sixty days from the date of service of this order. The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a pretrial scheduling order "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause," and leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). 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." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
Defendants' counsel will be unable to comply with the deadline because of a jury trial in Davis v. Prison Health Services, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-02629-SI, in the Northern District of California. Jury trial in that action is set to commence on November 28, 2011. Defendants' counsel alludes to "the press of other matters" as the reason she cannot meet the discovery cut-off deadline. Stocker Decl. ¶ 7. Plaintiff, however, does not oppose Defendants' motion, and instead requests more than sixty days in order for Plaintiff to receive his discovery requests. Pl.'s Opp'n ¶ 4, Doc. 57. The Court finds that Defendants have presented good cause for modification. By separate order, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended motion to compel. Sixty days for service of discovery requests, and for the filing of motions to compel, is more than sufficient time for all parties to complete discovery. No further extensions of time regarding discovery will be granted.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion for modification of the scheduling order, filed September 26, 2011, is GRANTED. The discovery cut-off date, including the filing of any motions to compel, is January 13, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.