(PC) Pittman v. Kamen ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD SIMEON PITTMAN, 1:18-cv-01316-DAD-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 13 v. ORDER (ECF No. 32.) 14 DR. KAMEN, et al., NEW DEADLINES FOR ALL PARTIES: 15 Defendants. New Discovery Deadline: July 30, 2021 16 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: September 30, 2021 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Edward Simeon Pittman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 22 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on November 8, 2019, on Plaintiff’s Eighth 23 Amendment medical indifference claim against defendant Kamen; and Plaintiff’s First 24 Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Kamen and Hickman. (ECF No. 14.) 25 This case is scheduled for a settlement conference on May 26, 2021, at 10:00am before 26 Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (ECF No. 26.) 27 On May 12, 2021, defendants Hickman and Kamen (“Defendants”) filed a motion to 28 modify the August 4, 2020 Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 32.) 1 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 2 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 4 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 5 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 6 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 7 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 8 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 9 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 Discussion 11 Pursuant to the court’s order issued on March 23, 2021, the current deadline for 12 completion of discovery in this case is June 15, 2021, and the current deadline for the filing of 13 dispositive motions is August 15, 2021. (ECF No. 28.) Defendants request a forty-five day 14 extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines to allow time for Defendants to 15 receive Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery responses, review Plaintiff’s responses, file any motions 16 to compel, if necessary, and incorporate the information into any appropriate dispositive motion. 17 Plaintiff has indicated his support of this motion to modify the existing discovery and scheduling 18 deadlines. (ECF No. 32-2 ¶ 6.) 19 Defendants have shown that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet 20 the discovery deadline established in the court’s current scheduling order. Therefore, the court 21 finds good cause to grant Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order. The court shall 22 extend the discovery deadline to July 30, 2021 and the dispositive motions deadline to September 23 30, 2021, for all parties. 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the court’s scheduling order, filed on May 12, 27 2021, is GRANTED; 28 /// 1 2. The deadline for completion of discovery is extended from June 15, 2021, to July 2 30, 2021, for all parties; 3 3. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended from August 15, 2021, to 4 September 30, 2021, for all parties; and 5 4. All other provisions of the court’s August 4, 2020, Discovery and Scheduling 6 Order remain the same. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: May 13, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28