The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DEVINE'S
MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. 57.)
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR ALL PARTIES TO THIS ACTION NEW DEADLINES:
Unenumerated Rule 12(b) Motion
Deadline to Amend Pleadings: 06/11/2013
Discovery Cut-Off Date: 08/10/2013
Dispositive Motions Deadline: 10/10/2013
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on September 5, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's original Complaint against defendants Barbara Devine*fn1 and Linda Fields, for the violation of Plaintiff's rights to freely exercise his religion under the First Amendment.*fn2 Id. On October 4, 2012, defendant Devine filed a motion to stay the deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order, or in the alternative, to modify the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 57.)
Defendant Devine requests a stay of the deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order until after service of process has been accomplished upon defendant Linda Fields. Defendant Linda Fields filed an answer in this action on October 8, 2012. (Doc. 60.) As a result of this filing, defendant Devine's motion for stay is moot and shall be denied as such.
III. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). A party may obtain relief from the court's deadline date for discovery by demonstrating good cause for allowing further discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
Defendant Devine requests an extension of the deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order to allow time for discovery by defendant Fields upon her entry into the action and to provide discovery and motion deadlines common to all defendants. Defense counsel seeks an extension of the deadlines for all defendants in the interest in judicial economy, to avoid ...