Filed: May 24, 2016
Latest Update: May 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT STROME'S MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEUDLING ORDER (Document 77) SANDRA M. SNYDER , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on November 10, 2015. Defendants Clark, Dougherty, Faldon, Gill, Hayward, Herrera, Kaiser, McCabe, Molina, Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Rouch, Sao, and Torres filed a motion for partial summary judgment o
Summary: ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT STROME'S MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEUDLING ORDER (Document 77) SANDRA M. SNYDER , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on November 10, 2015. Defendants Clark, Dougherty, Faldon, Gill, Hayward, Herrera, Kaiser, McCabe, Molina, Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Rouch, Sao, and Torres filed a motion for partial summary judgment on..
More
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT STROME'S MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND SCHEUDLING ORDER
(Document 77)
SANDRA M. SNYDER, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action.
The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on November 10, 2015.
Defendants Clark, Dougherty, Faldon, Gill, Hayward, Herrera, Kaiser, McCabe, Molina, Quillen, Riley, Rocha, Rouch, Sao, and Torres filed a motion for partial summary judgment on April 8, 2016. The motion is pending.
On May 4, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' motion to vacate the dates in the Discovery and Scheduling Order and stay discovery until resolution of the pending motion for partial summary judgment. The dates were not vacated as to Defendant Strome because, at that time, she was not a party to the motion.
On May 6, 2016, Defendant Strome joined in the pending motion for partial summary judgment.
Defendant Strome requested that the Court stay discovery on May 20, 2016. The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without further briefing. Local Rule 230(l).
DISCUSSION
Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "The schedule may be modified `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). "Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking the modification." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. "If the party seeking the modification `was not diligent, the inquiry should end' and the motion to modify should not be granted." Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
Defendant Strome has now joined in the pending motion for partial summary judgment, and the Court finds good cause to vacate the dates applicable to her in the April 11, 2016, order. As the Court noted in the May 4, 2016, order, if the partial motion for summary judgment is granted, it will greatly narrow the claims remaining in this action and avoid a large amount of potentially unnecessary discovery. A stay at this time will not severely prejudice Plaintiff.1
Accordingly, Defendant Strome's motion is GRANTED. The Court VACATES the dates in the April 11, 2016, order modifying the Discovery and Scheduling Order. Once the Court rules on the pending motion for partial summary judgment, it will issue an amended scheduling order allowing additional time for discovery related to the remaining claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
