(PC) Casey v. Haddad

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00855
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIQUE ZAFIR CASEY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00855-KES-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND 13 v. SCHEDULING ORDER

14 HADDAD, et al., (Doc. 62)

15 Defendants. 16

Plaintiff Dominique Zafir Casey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 17 action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s constitutional 18 claims against Defendants Castro, Fernandez, and Haddad. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 18, 2024. (Doc. 60.) 21 On February 13, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. (Doc. 62.) 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 24 be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 25 good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 26 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 27 the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 1 extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 2 Defendants move to extend the deadlines for the completion of discovery and for the 3 filing of dispositive motions by thirty days. Defendants assert they require additional time within 4 which to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding his failure to timely respond to Defendants’ 5 discovery requests before filing a motion to compel. Additionally, due to scheduling conflicts, 6 defense counsel was unable to set Plaintiff’s deposition prior to expiration of the discovery cut- 7 off deadline. Plaintiff’s deposition is presently set for February 27, 2025. 8 Defendants have established good cause to extend the deadlines for the completion of 9 discovery and the filing of dispositive motions. 10 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 11 Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that: 12 1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 62) is GRANTED; and 13 2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED as follows: 14 a. The February 18, 2025, deadline for completing discovery is extended to 15 March 20, 2025; and 16 b. The April 21, 2025, deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended to May 17 21, 2025. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: February 14, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

22 23 24 25 26 27