(PC) Thompson v. Pfeiffer ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAHN GREGORY THOMPSON, 1:20-cv-01619-ADA-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVING PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES 13 vs. IN COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 33.) 14 PFEIFFER, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY 15 Defendants. DEADLINE AND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL 16 PARTIES 17 New Discovery Deadline: August 31, 2023 18 New Dispositive Motions Deadline: October 30, 2023 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Rahn Gregory Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds 24 against defendants Correctional Officer (C/O) D. Dozer and C/O D. Nava for use of excessive 25 force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 14.) 26 On December 1, 2022, the court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing 27 pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of June 1, 2023, and a dispositive 28 motions deadline of August 1, 2023. (ECF No. 30.) 1 On July 17, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order amending the 2 discovery and dispositive motions deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. 3 (ECF No. 33.) 4 II. MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER 5 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 7 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 8 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 9 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court may also consider the 10 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 11 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court should not grant the 12 modification. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 The parties to this case have stipulated to a 90-day extension of the discovery and 14 dispositive motions deadlines in the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, solely to facilitate 15 Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ discovery requests. The parties’ proposed schedule is for 16 discovery, including the filing of any motions to compel, to be completed on or before August 17 31, 2023, and for dispositive motions be filed on or before October 30, 2023. 18 The court finds good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines in 19 the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order. The parties have shown that even with the exercise 20 of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirements of the order. Therefore, the parties’ 21 stipulation shall be approved and the deadlines shall be extended. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The parties’ stipulation to modify the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, 25 filed on July 17, 2023, is approved in full; 26 2. The deadline for the completion of discovery, including the filing of any motions 27 to compel, is extended from June 1, 2023 to August 31, 2023 for all parties to this 28 action, solely to facilitate Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ discovery requests; 1 3. The deadline for filing and serving pretrial dispositive motions is extended from 2 August 1, 2023 to October 30, 2023 for all parties to this action; and 3 4. All other provisions of the court’s December 1, 2022 Discovery and Scheduling 4 Order remain the same. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: July 18, 2023 /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