UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 5, 2012
ANTHONY ENENMOH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 63) Dispositive motion deadline: December 13, 2012
Plaintiff Steve Wilhelm ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Anthony Enenmoh and G. Miller for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On November 9, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Court's Scheduling Order. ECF No. 63. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).
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 Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 contend that they will not be able to serve their motion for summary judgment 2 until December 13, 2012 because of defense counsel's schedule. Good cause appearing, it is 3
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion, filed November 19, 2012, is granted. The 4 dispositive motion deadline is December 13, 2012. 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.