Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01515/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01515-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS CURSIS ECKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JACKSON,

Defendant.

No. 1:13-cv-01515 DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY AND 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 41)

Plaintiff Tommy Curtis Eckman (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint against Defendant Jackson, and it is currently in discovery.

On April 29, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 

Order. 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 

Case 1:13-cv-01515-GSA Document 42 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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).

Here, Defendant seeks a twenty-eight day extension of the May 2, 2016, discovery 

deadline so that he may take Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled for April 

18, 2016, but had to be rescheduled because of a conflict. 

For good cause, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is extended 

to May 30, 2016. The dispositive motion deadline will remain June 29, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01515-GSA Document 42 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2