ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 66.)

ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS FOR ALL PARTIES

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Stewart Manago ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D. Davey, A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively, "Defendants"), on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.) This case is now in the discovery phase.

On August 9, 2016, the Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order establishing pretrial deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of January 6, 2017, for the parties to complete discovery, including the filing of motions to compel, and a deadline of March 7, 2017, for the filing of pretrial dispositive motions. (ECF No. 45.)

On November 30, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 66.)

II. MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). To establish good cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The Court may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the Court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

Defendants assert that they are tasked with responding to numerous discovery requests because to date, Plaintiff has served Defendants with more than five hundred and fifty discovery requests. (De La Torre-Fennell Decl., ECF No. 66 ¶5.) Defense counsel declares that "[t]hese discovery requests are voluminous, seek information dating back to 1989, and require speaking with each of the seven Defendants, as well as conducting an in-depth review of Plaintiff's voluminous C-File." (Id. ¶6.) Defense counsel declares that she immediately began reviewing the discovery and has completed many of the responses; however, there are more responses to complete, and Defendants have not had the opportunity to prepare and serve Plaintiff with their discovery requests, or to prepare for and conduct Plaintiff's deposition. (Id. ¶¶7, 8.). Defendants request a sixty-day extension of the discovery cut-off and motion to compel deadlines, and a sixty-day extension of the dispositive motions deadline from the date the Court allows Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' discovery requests.

The Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines for the parties to conduct discovery and file dispositive motions. Defendants have shown diligence in conducting a voluminous amount of discovery. Therefore, Defendants' motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order shall be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.