Akiva Israel v. Robert Negrete

Opinion

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