Opinion
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, DIANA ESQUIVEL, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Babich, Baughman, Castro, Diggs, Haas, Holmes, C.J. Peterson, D. Peterson, Reyes, and Wright.
ROBERT NAVARRO, EM>Limited-Purpose Attorney for Plaintiff.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their counsel of record (limited purpose counsel for Plaintiff), agree to and request a modification of the Scheduling Order to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions by forty-five days, up to and including September 11, 2015. Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because defense counsel is preparing for trial and will be unable to complete Defendants' intended summary-judgment motion by the current deadline.
A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in ruling on such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's notes of 1983 amendment). "The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.'" Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amendment).
In December 2013, the Court issued a Scheduling Order in this matter. (ECF No. 371.) On July 8, 2014, the Court appointed Robert Navarro from the Court's pro bono attorney panel to represent Plaintiff for the limited purpose of conducting discovery. (ECF No. 403.) Based on the appointment of Mr. Navarro and the need for additional time to conduct discovery, the parties agreed to and requested an extension of the scheduling deadlines, including the deadline to file dispositive motions. (ECF No. 413.) The Court granted the parties' request, and continued the discovery deadline to March 27, 2015 and the dispositive-motion deadline to July 31, 2015. (ECF No. 414.) On February 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Holmes's further responses to a production request. (ECF No. 417.) The Court has not yet ruled on that discovery motion.
Defendants require an extension to file their motion for summary judgment because their counsel will not be able to complete the motion by the current deadline. Counsel has spent the majority of the month of July preparing for trial in Lemire v. CDCR (E.D. Cal. No. 2:08-cv-0455 GEB-EFB); trial is scheduled to start on August 4, 2015, before Judge Burrell, and is expected to last two to three weeks. Lemire is a factually and legal complex case that has consumed much of defense counsel's time and required that she be out of the office preparing witnesses and parties for trial. Further, the Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff's pending discovery motion, which may be a basis for Plaintiff to oppose or seek a continuance, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), of Defendants' intended summary-judgment motion. Good cause therefore exists to modify the Scheduling Order and extend the deadline to file dispositive motions for forty-five days. The requested extension will allow defense counsel to complete the motion due here and will give the Court additional time to rule on the pending discovery motion.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted.
ORDER
Based on the parties' stipulation and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the parties' stipulated request to modify the Scheduling Order is granted.
Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before September 11, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.