Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

(PC) Mosley v. Beard,, 2:16-cv-0486 JAM AC P. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180117755 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . On January 10, 2018, defendants filed a second motion to modify the scheduling order. 1 ECF No. 40. The current discovery cut-off date is March 15, 2018, and dispositive motions are scheduled to be filed by June 9, 2018. See ECF No. 36 at 3. Defendants request that the discovery cut-off date be extended to August 15, 2018, and that the dispositive motion cut-off date be extended to November 9, 2018. See ECF No. 40 at 1. The instant modificatio
More

ORDER

On January 10, 2018, defendants filed a second motion to modify the scheduling order.1 ECF No. 40. The current discovery cut-off date is March 15, 2018, and dispositive motions are scheduled to be filed by June 9, 2018. See ECF No. 36 at 3. Defendants request that the discovery cut-off date be extended to August 15, 2018, and that the dispositive motion cut-off date be extended to November 9, 2018. See ECF No. 40 at 1.

The instant modification request is being made in part due to the facts that: (1) the discovery and dispositive motion cut-off dates are fast approaching; (2) currently pending is defendants' summary judgment motion premised on plaintiff's alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies before commencing this action, which is potentially dispositive of this case; (3) plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment is due at the end of this week, and (4) defendants have exercised due diligence in moving this matter forward. See ECF No. 40 at 1-3.

Given these circumstancess, the court agrees that defendants have established good cause to modify the scheduling order. However, given the potentially dispositive nature of the pending summary judgment motion, as well as the fact that the filing deadline for plaintiff's opposition to it is imminent, the court finds that judicial economy warrants a stay of discovery and vacating related current deadlines until further order of the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' second motion to modify the current scheduling order (ECF No. 40) is DENIED without prejudice;

2. All discovery is STAYED pending the resolution of defendants' motion for summary judgment, and

3. The discovery and dispositive motion-related deadline dates in the court's original and modified scheduling orders (ECF Nos. 32, 36) are hereby VACATED until further order of the court.

FootNotes


1. Defendants' first motion to modify the scheduling order was granted on October 16, 2017. See ECF No. 36. At that time, because a decision on defendants' summary judgment motion (ECF No. 33) was pending, a protective order and a stay were also granted which limited discovery to evidence related to the issue of exhaustion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). See ECF No. 36 at 2-3.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer