Opinion
1:19-cv-01442-NONE-EPG (PC)
07-26-2021
JOHN JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. N. AKABIKE, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE BY FORTY-FIVE DAYS
(ECF NO. 40)
Plaintiff John Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Currently before the Court is Defendant N. Akabike's (“Defendant”) motion to modify the scheduling order to extend the dispositive motion deadline. (ECF No. 40.)
This is Defendant's second request to modify the Scheduling Order and extend the dispositive motion deadline in this case. On May 25, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline by sixty days because Defendant's counsel needed additional time to secure declarations to support and complete Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 37.) According to the motion, those declarations included, but were not limited to, a declaration from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's healthcare appeals office and California Correctional Health Care Services Chief Medical Consultant, Dr. Feinberg. (Id.) On May 26, 2021, the Court entered an order granting the motion. (ECF No. 38.)
Defendant now moves to extend the dispositive motion deadline by an additional forty-five days because Defendant's counsel has not been able to consult with Dr. Feinberg. (ECF No. 40.) Defendant's counsel provides a declaration in support of the motion stating that he has “made numerous attempts to communicate with Dr. Feinberg in unrelated cases and [has] not received a response since April.” (ECF No. 40.)
Having reviewed the motion, the Court will grant Defendant's request. However, no further extensions will be granted on the basis of Defendant's counsel needing additional time to consult with Dr. Feinberg.
In the motion, Defendant states that “[t]here is no trial date or remaining deadline in this case other than the one to file dispositive motions.” (ECF No. 40 at 2.) While a trial date has not been set in light of the judicial emergency in this district, Defendant is reminded that there are remaining deadlines in this case. The Scheduling Order set deadlines for expert discovery, submission of pretrial statements, and a telephonic trial confirmation hearing and those deadlines have not been vacated or modified. (See ECF Nos. 31, 37.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion (ECF No. 40) to modify the Scheduling Order in this case is GRANTED;
2. The Scheduling Order (ECF No. 31), as previously modified (ECF No. 37), is further modified and the deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended to September 16, 2021;
3. The expert disclosure deadline remains set for December 5, 2021, the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline remains set for January 5, 2022, Plaintiffs pretrial statement remains due by February 3, 2022, Defendant's pretrial statement remains due by March 4, 2022, and the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing remains set for April 6, 2022, at 8:15 AM in Courtroom 4 (NONE); and
4. All other terms and conditions of the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 31) remain in full force and effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.