ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE (ECF No. 75.)

NEW DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL: JANUARY 28, 2019

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

George McClure ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed on February 9, 2015, on Plaintiff's medical claim under the Eighth Amendment against defendants C. K. Chen (M.D.) and C. Horton (Physician's Assistant) (collectively, "Defendants"). (ECF No. 12.)

On January 29, 2016, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting out deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of July 1, 2016 to complete discovery, including the filing of motions to compel. (ECF No. 22.) On May 11, 2016, the court stayed discovery pending resolution of Defendants' first motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 36.) On March 28, 2017, the court denied Defendants' first motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46.) On September 14, 2018, the court lifted the stay of discovery and issued a new discovery and scheduling order setting a new discovery deadline of January 14, 2019. (ECF No. 70.)

On January 14, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 75.)

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 request an extension of the discovery deadline from January 14, 2019, to January 28, 2019, to file a motion to compel. Defendants explain that they met with Plaintiff at Plaintiff's deposition on December 12, 2018, and agreed that Plaintiff would provide amended responses to Defendants' entire Request for Production, Set One, and Interrogatories No. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8, by December 24, 2018. (Mohmoud Decl., Ex. A.) Defendants have not received these amended responses. (Mohmoud Decl., ¶ 3.) Defense counsel contacted Plaintiff on January 14, 2019, and informed him that the amended responses had not been received. (Mohmoud Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff assured defense counsel that he had sent the amended discovery responses and now the parties are in the process of exchanging the amended responses at issue in a final attempt to avoid a motion to compel. (Mohmoud Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has agreed to search for any copies he made of his amended responses and send them to defense counsel this week. (Mohmoud Decl., ¶ 4.) In light of these circumstances, Defendants have requested that the court extend the discovery deadline to allow Defendants time to file a motion to compel.

The court finds that Defendants have shown that even with the exercise of due diligence they cannot meet the court's discovery deadline of January 14, 2019. Therefore, good cause appearing, the discovery deadline shall be extended to January 28, 2019, to allow Defendants time to file a motion to compel. 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.