(PC) Marta v. CDCR ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON MARTA, 1:20-cv-00072-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE 13 v. APPLICATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 14 CDCR, (ECF No. 33.) 15 Defendant. ORDER EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FILING DEADLINE TO MAY 16 28, 2023 FOR ALL PARTIES 17 New Deadline to File Dispositive Motions: May 28, 2023 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Jason Marta (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 21 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 22 Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1994). This case now proceeds against sole defendant CDCR 23 (“Defendant”) for violation of the ADA. 24 On March 30, 2022, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 25 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of August 30, 2022, and a 26 dispositive motions filing deadline of October 30, 2022. (ECF No. 23.) On August 30, 2022, 27 Defendant filed an ex parte application to modify the Scheduling Order and extend the deadlines 28 for discovery and for the filing of dispositive motions. (ECF No. 25.) On August 31, 2022, the 1 Court granted Defendant’s application and extended the discovery deadline to October 29, 2022 2 and the dispositive motions filing deadline to December 29, 2022. (ECF No. 26.) On December 3 29, 2022, Defendant filed an ex parte application to extend the dispositive motions filing deadline 4 to March 14, 2023. (ECF No. 29.) On January 6, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s 5 application and extended the dispositive motions deadline to March 14, 2023. (ECF No. 30.) 6 On March 14, 2023, Defendant filed another ex parte application to extend the dispositive 7 motions filing deadline to May 28, 2023. (ECF No. 33.) 8 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 9 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 11 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 12 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 13 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 14 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 15 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion 16 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 17 The Court finds good cause to extend the dispositive motions filing deadline in the 18 Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order for all parties. Therefore, the application to modify the 19 Scheduling Order filed by Defendant CDCR on March 14, 2023 shall be granted, and the 20 dispositive motions filing deadline shall be extended to May 28, 2023, for all parties. 21 III. CONCLUSION 22 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Defendant CDCR’s ex parte application to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order, 24 filed on March 14, 2023, is GRANTED; 25 2. The dispositive motions filing deadline is extended from March 14, 2023 to May 26 28, 2023, for all parties; and 27 3. All other provisions of the court’s March 30, 2022 Discovery and Scheduling 28 Order remain the same. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: March 31, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28