(PC) Brooks v. Arrizola ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LAMAR BROOKS, 1:20-cv-00476-JLT-GSA-PC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ARREZOLA’S MOTION TO MODIFY 12 vs. SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 30.) 13 ARRIZOLA, et al., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO 14 Defendants. SERVE WRITTEN DISCOVERY UNTIL APRIL 14, 2022 15 NEW DEADLINE: APRIL 14, 2022 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff Lamar Brooks is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 10, 2022, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling 20 Order establishing pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a discovery deadline of June 10, 21 2022. (ECF No. 25.) The Order required that written discovery be served at least 60 calendar 22 days before the discovery deadline. (Id. at 2:6.) On April 13, 2022, Defendant Arrezola1 filed a 23 motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 30.) 24 II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 25 Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 27 28 1 Sued as Arrizola. 1 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the 2 modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due 3 diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the 4 prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling 5 order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not grant the motion 6 to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 Defendant Arrezola requests a three-day extension of the deadline for serving written 8 discovery, until April 14, 2022. 9 The Court finds good cause to extend the deadline to serve written discovery. Defense 10 counsel has shown that she was diligent in attempting to meet the deadline established in the 11 Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, but was unable to serve written discovery before the 12 deadline expired. Therefore, Defendant Arrezola’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order shall 13 be granted. 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 Based on the foregoing and good cause having been presented to the court, IT IS 16 HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Defendant Arrezola’s motion to modify the court’s Discovery and Scheduling 18 Order, filed on April 13, 2022, is GRANTED; 19 2. The deadline for serving written discovery is extended to April 14, 2022 for all 20 parties to this action; and 21 3. All other provisions of the court’s January 10, 2022 Discovery and Scheduling 22 Order remain the same. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: April 19, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28