From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thornberry v. Tate

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 12, 2021
1:19-cv-00825-AWI-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2021)

Opinion

1:19-cv-00825-AWI-EPG (PC)

07-12-2021

DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD TATE, Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 40)

On July 9, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF No. 40). “Defendant seeks an extension of the non-expert discovery deadline because defense counsel has had a difficult time consulting with a medical consultant on Plaintiff's claims to determine whether Plaintiff's deposition should be noticed. Defendant seeks and extension of the dispositive-motion deadline to October 8, 2021, because similarly, defense counsel requires more time to consult with his medical consultant and secure the needed declarations and complete the motion for summary judgment that Defendant intends to file.” (Id. at 1-2).

As granting the motion will not change any other dates or deadlines in the schedule, and as Defendant has shown good cause for an extension, the Court will grant the motion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion to modify the scheduling order (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED;

2. The non-expert discovery deadline is extended to August 9, 2021;

3. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to October 8, 2021; and

4. All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order shall remain as previously set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thornberry v. Tate

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 12, 2021
1:19-cv-00825-AWI-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2021)
Case details for

Thornberry v. Tate

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL LEE THORNBERRY, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD TATE, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 12, 2021

Citations

1:19-cv-00825-AWI-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2021)