Akiva Israel v. Robert Negrete

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 AKIVA ISRAEL, No. 2:22-cv-1391 TLN CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff appears pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order, 19 including the discovery deadline. (ECF No. 57). This is the third request to modify the Court’s 20 scheduling order. As discussed below, the motion to modify the scheduling order is granted. 22 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 23 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 24 quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 25 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 26 ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 27 Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607). 1 | IO. BACKGROUND 2 On March 31, 2025, the Court issued its discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 34.) 3 || On July 9, 2025, the Court granted plaintiffs first motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF 4 | No. 41.) The discovery deadline was extended to September 18, 2025, and the pretrial motions 5 || deadline was extended to November 17, 2025. (Id.) 6 On December 16, 2025, the parties’ joint motion to modify the scheduling order was 7 || granted, and the discovery deadline was extended to March 31, 2026, and the pretrial motions 8 | deadline was extended to May 29, 2026. (ECF No. 54.) On February 24, 2026, plaintiff's motion 9 || to compel discovery was denied, and plaintiff's amended motion to issue a subpoena was granted. 10 || (ECF No. 55.) The order included deadlines by which plaintiff must submit the subpoena form to 11 || the Court Clerk, and the U.S. Marshal will then effect service of the subpoena. (Id.) 12 | IV. DISCUSSION 13 Because the subpoena process is still underway, plaintiff has not yet received the 14 || documents needed to review to determine whether additional discovery will be required. The 15 || Court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order and extend the deadlines as requested. 16 || The discovery deadline is extended from March 31, 2026, to June 30, 2026, and the deadline to 17 || file all other pretrial motions is extended from May 29, 2026, to August 25, 2026. The Court 18 || encourages plaintiff to review the initial discovery and scheduling order regarding the 19 || propounding of discovery requests (ECF No. 34), and to promptly review documents received via 20 || subpoena. This Court is not inclined to further extend the discovery deadline in this case. 21 | Vz CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling 23 || order (ECF No. 57) is granted. The discovery deadline is extended to June 30, 2026, and the 24 || deadline to file all other pretrial motions is extended to August 25, 2026. In all other respects, the 25 || March 31, 2025 discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 34) remains in effect. 26 || Dated: March 9, 2026 7 _ eo 27 —CAm Spo /L/isral391.16b3 CHI SOO KIM 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE