ORDER

EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.

This Order sets forth the Court's rulings on a number of pending Motions (Docs. 187, 188, 190) and also addresses Plaintiff's Notices of Substitution (Docs. 172, 177, 178).

I. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Written Report Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) Forty-Five (`45') day Extension" (Doc. 187).

The Court set August 28, 2018 as the deadline for Plaintiff to disclose his expert witnesses and reports. (Doc. 76). On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed an "Expert Witness Disclosure Statement" (Doc. 184) identifying four expert witnesses. On August 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion (Doc. 187) seeking a forty-five day extension of the deadline for Plaintiff to disclose his expert witness reports. The Motion (Doc. 187) does not indicate that Plaintiff has actually retained certain individuals to be expert witnesses and that those individuals are in the process of preparing their reports. The Court does not find good cause to extend the deadline for Plaintiff's expert witness reports. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ("A schedule [established pursuant to a Rule 16(b)(1) scheduling order] may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent."). Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 190) will be denied.

B. Plaintiff's "Motion to Request a Discovery Conference" (Doc. 188)

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's August 28, 2018 "Motion to Request a Discovery Conference" (Doc. 188) and Defendants' Response (Doc. 189). The Court does not find that Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 188) presents good cause for a discovery conference. The Motion (Doc. 188) therefore will be denied.

C. Plaintiff's "Motion for Extention [sic] of time to Complete Service on Remaining Defendants . . ." (Doc. 190)

Next, the Court has considered Plaintiff's August 31, 2018 "Motion for Extention [sic] of time to Complete Service on Remaining Defendants . . ." (Doc. 190). The Motion was filed after the August 28, 2018 deadline for effecting service on Defendants. (Doc. 126).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) "requires a district court to grant an extension of time when the plaintiff shows good cause for the delay. . . . Additionally, the rule permits the district court to grant an extension even in the absence of good cause." Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). The Court does not find that Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 190) presents good cause for extending the service deadline. Further, Plaintiff's Motion does not indicate that Plaintiff has additional information that would lead to the service of the unserved Defendants.1 Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 190) will be denied.2

D. Plaintiff's Notices of Substitution (Docs. 172, 177, 178)

Finally, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Notices of Substitution (Docs. 172, 177, 178). The Notices identify Governor Doug Ducey to be substituted for John Doe #10, Tammy Taylor to be substituted for Jane Doe #12, and Marquis Software to be substituted for Jane/John Doe #11. The Third Amended Complaint states that Defendant Does 10-15 are employed as "non-formulary Medical Board at Corizon and/or ("ADC")." (Doc. 58 at 4). The Plaintiff does not identify the proposed substituted Defendants as members of the "non-formulary Medical Board at Corizon and/or ("ADC") during all times relevant to the cause of action alleged. The Court will strike the Notices (Docs. 172, 177, 178).

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time to Disclose Expert Written Report Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) Forty-Five (`45') day Extension" (Doc. 187).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's August 28, 2018 "Motion to Request a Discovery Conference" (Doc. 188).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Motion for Extention [sic] of time to Complete Service on Remaining Defendants . . ." (Doc. 190).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's "Notices of Substitution" (Docs. 172, 177, 178).