From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Teragawa

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 24, 2022
2:21-cv-1330 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-1330 TLN KJN P

10-24-2022

KIRELL TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. S. TERAGAWA, Defendant.


[PROPOSED] ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Defendant Teragawa requested an extension of the pretrial motions filing deadline.

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

Having read and considered defendant's motion and the declaration of defendant's counsel supporting the request, and good cause appearing, defendant's motion is granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion to modify the deadline to file all pretrial motions (ECF No. 36) is granted; and

2. The deadline for filing pretrial motions is extended to December 5, 2022. In all other respects, the discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 28) remains in effect.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Teragawa

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 24, 2022
2:21-cv-1330 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)
Case details for

Taylor v. Teragawa

Case Details

Full title:KIRELL TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. S. TERAGAWA, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 24, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-1330 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)