(PC) Moore v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN MOORE, Case No. 1:20-cv-01089-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 13 v. (Doc. No. 36) 14 NKIRUKA AKABIKE, DECEMBER 10, 2024 DEADLINE 15 Defendant.

16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendant Nkiruka Akabike’s Motion for Extension of Time 19 filed on November 25, 2024. (Doc. No. 36). Defendant seeks an extension of 77 days to file a 20 dispositive motion. The Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on November 28, 2023 directed 21 all discovery to be completed no later than August 27, 2024 and dispositive motions to be filed no 22 later than November 26, 2024. (Doc. No. 30). The parties were further warned that: 23 Any requests for an extension to any deadline set in this Discovery and Scheduling Order must be filed at least seven (7) days prior to 24 its expiration. The deadlines set forth above are firm and will only be extended upon a showing of good cause. Eleventh hour motions, 25 i.e., motions filed on the eve of the deadline expiration, to extend a deadline will only be granted upon a showing of extraordinary 26 circumstances. 27 (Id. at 3:15-19). Defendant seeks an extension to the dispositive motion’s deadline, citing defense 28 counsel’s competing deadlines and a heavy caseload of other prisoner litigation matters. (Doc. 1 | No. 36-1 at 5). Defendant further alludes to the need to engage in discovery. (d. 4 4, stating 2 | additional time will “provide sufficient time to serve and review discovery materials.”). 3 | Discovery closed three months ago. Counsel does not indicate whether he conferred with 4 | Plaintiff prior to seeking the extension of time. 5 Nonetheless, the Court warned all parties that it will not grant eleventh hour deadlines 6 | absent extraordinary circumstances. (Doc. No. 30 at 3:15-19). Nor does counsel’s heavy 7 | caseload constitute extraordinary circumstances or good cause. See Williams v. James River Grp. 8 | Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1179 (D. Nev. 2022) (attorney’s “busy schedule is not good cause for 9 || the extension sought”) (collecting cases). “The Ninth Circuit has . . . repeatedly and emphatically 10 | addressed the importance of scheduling orders as tools for district courts to manage their heavy 11 caseloads.” Desio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 339 F.R.D. 632, 641 (D. Nev. 2021) 12 || (collecting cases). As articulated in one of those cases: 13 A scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” The 14 district court’s decision to honor the terms of its binding scheduling order does not simply exalt procedural technicalities over the merits 15 of [the] case. Disregard of the order would undermine the court's ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the 16 litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier. 17 | Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). Given the age of the 18 | instant case, the Court finds it particularly important to adhere to the operative Discovery and 19 | Scheduling order to ensure that this case timely proceeds to a resolution. The Court will afford 20 | Defendant a two-week extension to file a dispositive motion, if appropriate. 21 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 22 Defendant Nkiruka Akabike’s motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 36) is DENIED. 23 | The Court, however, will permit Defendant a limited two-week extension of time to file a 24 | dispositive motion. Any dispositive motion must be filed no later than December 10, 2024. 25 XZ Dated: November 26, 2024 o.[h. Bareh Back 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28