(PC) Sifuentes v. Ola ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL G. SIFUENTES, 1:16-cv-00241-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT OLA’S MOTION TO MODIFY 13 vs. SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 47.) 14 DR. OLA, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY 15 Defendants. DEADLINE AND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL 16 PARTIES 17 New Discovery Deadline: July 30, 2020 18 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: Sept. 30, 2020 19 20 21 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Miguel G. Sifuentes (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 24 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s First Amended 25 Complaint filed on April 26, 2017, against defendant Dr. Ola (“Defendant”) for failure to provide 26 adequate medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 21.) 27 28 1 Plaintiff paid the filing fee on February 25, 2016. (Court Record.) 1 On October 15, 2019, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 2 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of April 15, 2020, and a 3 dispositive motions deadline of June 15, 2020. (ECF No. 43.) On April 17, 2020, Defendant 4 filed a motion to modify the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 47.) 5 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 6 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 8 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 9 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 10 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 11 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 12 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 13 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 14 Defendant requests at least a ninety-day extension of the discovery and dispositive 15 motions deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling order, on the grounds that given the 16 current COVID-19 crisis, it is not feasible to complete discovery or complete a dispositive motion 17 by the deadlines in the court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 47 at 2 and Declaration of Matthew 18 W. Roman at ¶¶ 4-9.) 19 The court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines in 20 the court’s Discovery and Scheduling order. Defendant has shown that even with the exercise of 21 due diligence, he cannot meet the requirements of the order. Therefore, the motion to modify the 22 Scheduling Order filed by defendant Dr. Ola shall be granted. 23 III. CONCLUSION 24 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Defendant Ola’s motion to modify the court’s Scheduling Order, filed on April 26 17, 2020, is GRANTED; 27 2. The deadline for the completion of discovery is extended from April 15, 2020 to 28 July 30, 2020 for all parties to this action; 1 3. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from 2 June 15, 2020 to September 30, 2020 for all parties to this action; and 3 4. All other provisions of the court’s October 15, 2019 Discovery and Scheduling 4 Order remain the same. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: April 20, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28