(PC) Lewis v. Ugwueze ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DARONTA T. LEWIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00596-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 12 v. ORDER 13 DR. KOKOR, (ECF No. 163) 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Daronta T. Lewis is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is currently set for jury trial on December 18 13, 2022. 19 Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order, filed 20 September 27, 2022. Defendant submits that a related case filed by Plaintiff is currently set for a 21 settlement conference on October 27, 2022. See Lewis v. Velasquez-Miranda et al., 2:21-cv- 22 00932-DAD-EFB (PC), Doc. No. 89. Defendant also requests that the Court modify its 23 scheduling order and extend the deadline to prepare a dispositive motion. Defendant’s motion 24 shall be denied. 25 Under Rule 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 26 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Within this context, good cause is measured by the diligence 27 of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 1 | modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon 2 | the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.” Id. at 609. 3 Defendant has failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking the current extension of 4 |time. This case was set for jury trial on August 10, 2022-the same date the settlement conference 5 | was scheduled in Plaintiff's related case. See ECF No. 157; see also Lewis v. Velasquez- 6 | Miranda et al., 2:21-cv-00932-DAD-EFB (PC), Doc. No. 89. Thus, Defendant has known since 7 | August 2022, of both the trial date and settlement conference date, and there is no showing of 8 | due diligence in seeking the current extension. Further, the deadline to file a dispositive motion 9 | in this case expired on July 5, 2022, and although Defendant’s counsel contends that in preparing 10 | for settlement evaluation and trial he discovered several sets of medical records, counsel entered 11 | this case in February 2022 well in advance of the dispositive motion deadline. Defendant 12 | has failed to show that the July 5, 2022, dispositive motion deadline could not have been met 13 | despite Defendant’s diligence, and the Court must proceed with all cases in an orderly and timely 14 | fashion. See Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J. 15 | 1990) (Rule 16(b) sets forth a “careful scheme of reasonable framing and enforcement of 16 | scheduling orders for case management” to ensure that cases proceed in an orderly, predictable, 17 | and efficient manner.); see also C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 656 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 18 | 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“Rule 16(b) was added to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order 19 | to facilitate judicial control over a case and to set a schedule for pretrial steps.”). That said, 20 | Defendant is free to request that the settlement conference be advanced in Plaintiffs related case. 21 | However, for the reasons explained, Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order filed on 22 | September 27, 2022, is DENIED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 25 | Dated: _ September 28, 2022 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28