Peacock v. Horowitz

Full title: RICHARD PEACOCK, Plaintiff, v. HOROWITZ, Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 4, 2015

2:13-cv-2506 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015)

Opinion

RICHARD PEACOCK, Plaintiff, v. HOROWITZ, Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-2506 TLN AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. August 4, 2015

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court is defendant's motion to compel and to modify the scheduling order. ECF No. 31.

         Defendant's motion seeks to compel plaintiff to complete his deposition and to modify the scheduling order to allow the completion of plaintiff's deposition after the close of discovery and to extend the time for filing dispositive motions. Id . The court will withhold ruling on the motion to compel until the motion is fully briefed. However, in light of the pending motion to compel, the motion to modify the scheduling will be granted.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's motion to compel (ECF No. 31) within twenty-one days of this order. Defendant shall have seven days to reply.

         2. Defendant's motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 31) is granted. The October 30, 2015 dispositive motion deadline is vacated and new deadlines for the completion of plaintiff's deposition and the filing of dispositive motions will be set upon resolution of the motion to compel.