(PC) Leen v. Montejo ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOVIE DEWDROP LEEN, Case No. 2:20-cv-02231-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S THIRD MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 13 v. AND SCHEDULING 14 E. MONTEJO, ECF No. 40 15 Defendant. 16 17 The court previously issued a scheduling order that provided, among other things, that all 18 dispositive motions were to be filed by July 15, 2022. ECF No. 31 at 5. One week before the 19 dispositive motion deadline, defendant sought a sixty-three-day extension of time to file a 20 dispositive motion. ECF No. 32. Defendant’s counsel stated that he needed additional time to 21 file a dispositive motion due to previously set deadlines and pending tasks in other cases. ECF 22 No. 32-1 at 2. I granted defendant’s motion and extended the deadline to September 16, 2022. 23 ECF No. 33. 24 On September 8, 2022, defendant filed a substitution of attorney, ECF No. 36, and on 25 September 12, 2022, he filed a second motion to modify the scheduling order, ECF No. 38. 26 Defendant, through his new attorney, sought an additional ninety days to file a dispositive motion. 27 Id. I again granted that request and extended the deadline to December 15, 2022. ECF No. 39. 28 Defendant has now filed his third request to modify the scheduling order, seeking to extend the 1 | dispositive motion deadline by an additional ninety days. ECF No. 40. 2 A district court’s scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause. 3 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” inquiry focuses primarily on the diligence of the party 4 | seeking to amend the scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 5 | 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the pretrial scheduling order may be modified if its deadlines 6 | “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. 7 Defendant’s counsel explains that due to the volume of documents he needs to review for 8 | this case and his commitments on other cases, he needs more time to prepare defendant’s motion 9 || for summary judgment.! Defendant’s motion describes the various tasks he has diligently 10 | completed in other cases. It does, not, however, specify the work, if any, counsel has performed 11 | for this action over the prior three months. While I am sympathetic to the burden of managing a 12 || heavy caseload, counsel’s obligations to other cases cannot continue to give way to those imposed 13 | inthis case. Nevertheless, given the relatively recent substitution of counsel, ECF No. 36, I will 14 | grant defendant one final extension of the deadline to file dispositive motion. 15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 16 1. Defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order, ECF No. 40, is 17 | granted. 18 2. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to March 15, 2023. 19 3. Absent a showing of extraordinary cause, no further modifications to the scheduling 20 | order will be granted. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ December 16, 2022 q——— 24 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 ' Counsel states that the file for this case contains more than 38,000 pages of material.