IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 5, 2012
TONY ROBERTS, PLAINTIFF,
MATTHEW CATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On May 31, 2012, defendants Cate and Knowles filed a motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment, along with their motion for summary judgment.
"The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "The schedule may be modified 'if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson., 975 F.2d at 607).
Here, the pretrial motions deadline expired during the pendency of plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, and defendants' prior motion to extend the deadline was denied without prejudice. Thus, defendants have shown good cause to grant leave to file the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' May 31, 2012 motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 76) is granted;
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is deemed timely filed; and
3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment within twenty-one days from the date of this order; defendants' reply is due seven days thereafter.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.