ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF Nos. 86, 88.)

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.)

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 December 9, 2016, the court issued an order extending the discovery deadline to March 7, 2017, and the dispositive motions deadline to May 6, 2017. (ECF No. 70.) On May 22, 2017, the court issued an order extending the discovery deadline to July 7, 2017, and the dispositive motions deadline to September 8, 2017. (ECF No. 85.)

On June 9, 2017, and July 12, 2017, Defendants filed motions to modify the scheduling order to extend the deadlines. (ECF Nos. 86, 88.)

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).

In their first motion (ECF No. 86), Defendants request a sixty-day extension of the discovery deadline from July 7, 2017, to September 5, 2017, and a sixty-day extension of the dispositive motions deadline from September 8, 2017, to November 7, 2017. In their second motion (ECF No. 88), Defendants request extensions of the same deadlines until sixty days from the date the court rules on Defendants' motion to compel filed concurrently with the second motion. Defendants seek additional time to conduct further discovery, to schedule and take Plaintiff's deposition, and, if necessary, file another motion to compel.

Defense counsel has filed a declaration dated July 12, 2017, in which she sets forth Defendants' diligence in attending to the matters in this case. (ECF No. 88-1.) The court finds that Defendants have shown that even with the exercise of due diligence they cannot meet the deadlines established in the court's Discovery and Scheduling Order. Therefore, the court finds good cause to extend the outstanding deadlines for all parties to this action. Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants' motions to modify the scheduling order.

Good cause appearing, the discovery deadline shall be extended to October 6, 2017, for all parties to this action, and the dispositive motions deadlines shall be extended to December 6, 2017, for all parties to this action.1 Any further requests for extension of deadlines should be filed before the expiration of the existing deadlines.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.