Opinion
1:16-cv-01212-DAD-GSA-PC
07-01-2021
JEREMY JONES, Plaintiff, v. ARNETTE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ARNETT, FLORES, GONZALES, AND KEENER'S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 88.) ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL PARTIES
GARY S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. BACKGROUND
Jeremy Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed on September 10, 2018, on (1) Plaintiff's ADA claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, Gonzales, Flores, Arnett, Zamora, and Lopez, in their official capacities; (2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and Gonzales; and (3) Plaintiff's due process claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and Gonzales. (ECF No. 33.)
Sued as Arnette.
On November 6, 2020, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines for the parties. (ECF No. 59.) The current discovery deadline is June 5, 2021, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions is August 5, 2021. (ECF No. 77.) On June 3, 2021, defendants Arnett, Flores, Gonzales, and Keener (“Defendants”) filed a motion to modify the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 88.)
II. 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).
Defendants request a sixty-day extension of the current discovery and dispositive motions deadlines, due to the fact that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint names seven defendants but only four of them have been served and answered the complaint. Defendants also request additional time to take Plaintiff's deposition. On June 2, 2021, Defendants' counsel attempted to obtain a stipulation from Plaintiff by phone regarding this request to extend the discovery deadline in order to take Plaintiff's deposition, but Plaintiff did not agree to the stipulation. (Decl. of Janet Chen, ECF No. 88 at 8 ¶ 6.)
The court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines in this case. Defendants have shown that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirements of the order issued on April 9, 2021, which established the current deadlines. Therefore, the motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order filed by defendants Arnett, Flores, Gonzales, and Keener shall be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants Arnett, Flores, Gonzales, and Keener's motion to modify the court's Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed on June 3, 2021, is GRANTED;
2. The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from June 5, 2021 to August 5, 2021 for all parties to this action;
3. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from August 5, 2021 to October 5, 2021 for all parties to this action; and
4. All other provisions of the court's November 6, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling Order remain the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.