(PS) Hanible v. County of Solano Sheriff's Office

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIHANA HANIBLE, No. 2:21-cv-1315 DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 15 16 Defendants, 17 18 On January 31, 2023, the court issued a scheduling order.1 (ECF No. 51.) On August 1, 19 2023, plaintiff, who is proceeding in this action pro se, filed a motion for an extension of time 20 with respect to the expert witness deadline contained in the schedule. (ECF No. 63.) Therein, 21 plaintiff explains that plaintiff’s father recently passed away. (Id. at 3.) Defendant has not 22 opposed plaintiff’s motion. 23 “Once the district court ha[s] filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 16 . . . that rule’s standards control[].” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 25 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which 26 focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the 27 1 The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 46.) 1 | opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party 2 | seeking the amendment.’” Manriquez v. City of Phoenix, 654 Fed. Appx. 350, 351 (9th Cir. 3 | 2016) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 4 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) the schedule in this action “shall not be modified except upon a 5 | showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “The district court may modify the pretrial 6 | schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 7 | Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 8 || amendment)). 9 Here, the court finds that plaintiff has established good cause to amend the schedule in 10 | this action.” 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff shall disclose experts no later than September 29, 2023. 13 2. Defendants shall disclose experts no later than October 6, 2023. 14 3. Rebuttal experts shall be disclosed no later than October 20, 2023. 15 4. Discovery shall be completed by November 17, 2023. 16 5. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be completed by 17 | December 22, 2023. 18 6. A Final Pretrial Conference date will be set after the resolution of any dispositive 19 | motions, or passage of the dispositive motion cutoff. 20 | Dated: August 28, 2023

22 23 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 DLB:6 25 DB/orders/orders.pro se/hanible1315.eot.ord 26 |—$_ ——_——_ ? Although plaintiff only requested an extension of time with respect to the expert witness 28 | deadline, the court finds it necessary to adjust the other deadlines found in the schedule.