Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02334/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02334-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

13-cv-02334-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MICHAEL PACHECO,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. DUARTE, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13-cv-02334-WVG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

CONTINUE THE PRETRIAL 

MOTION FILING DEADLINE

(Doc. No. 77)

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to Continue the Pretrial Motion 

Filing Deadline to March 25, 2016 (Doc. No. 77.). Defendants have not demonstrated

good cause for the continuance, and the Court therefore DENIES the motion.

II. BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Plaintiff David 

Michael Pacheco, a state prisoner appearing pro se. On February 18, 2015, the Court held 

a case management conference and entered a case management order setting deadlines 

for discovery and other pretrial proceedings, including a cut-off date of February 9, 2016 

for all pretrial motions other than motions to amend the pleading, join parties, or motions 

in limine. (Doc. No. 52.) On February 8, 2016, Defendants filed the motion currently 

before the Court.

Case 3:13-cv-02334-WVG Document 78 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 3
2

13-cv-02334-WVG

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

III. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that the scheduling order “may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The primary 

consideration under Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard is “the diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 

Cir. 1992). Indeed, “[a]though the existence or degree of prejudice to [an adversary] 

might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the 

moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. “If that party was not diligent, the 

inquiry should end.” Id. “Allowing parties to disregard the instructions of a scheduling 

order would undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon 

course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and cavalier. Rule 16 was drafted to 

prevent this situation.” Dunfee v. Truman Capital Advisors, LP, 2013 WL 5603258, at *3

(S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013) (quoting Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMB Munai, Inc., 2009 WL 

3467756, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2009)).

In this case, defense counsel has submitted a declaration in which he asserts that 

doctors’ appointments and the competing needs of other cases prevented him from filing

the motion for summary judgment by the date specified in the scheduling order. But the 

Court notes that counsel’s last doctor’s appointment was on November 13, 2015, almost 

two months prior to the deadline. Moreover, the declaration indicates that counsel’s other

work had been completed well before the deadline, with the last filing being on February 

2, 2016. The Court cautions that the press of other business is rarely, if ever, justification 

for failing to abide by a scheduling order. See id. at 4. To the contrary, counsel’s 

statement that his case load left him with little time to complete the work on Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment undermines his argument that he was diligent in this case.

See Mondares v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 2011 WL 5374613, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011)

(“[O]ther trials and a busy schedule do nothing to advance Plaintiff’s burden to show she 

was diligent in this case.”).

Case 3:13-cv-02334-WVG Document 78 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 3
3

13-cv-02334-WVG

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

Furthermore, counsel has offered no justification for waiting until the very eve of 

the motion cut-off to file this request. In doing so, counsel unjustifiably assumed that the 

Court would automatically grant the motion. Counsel was aware of his busy schedule 

well in advance of the deadline, yet he did not request an extension until the last possible 

moment. This demonstrates a lack of diligence not only in litigating the case, but also in 

seeking to amend the scheduling order once the necessity of such an amendment became 

apparent.

Counsel also made no effort to meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to filing this 

request. Chambers Rules require that any requests to amend a scheduling order be made 

by filing a joint motion. Judge Gallo’s Chambers' Rules (Civil), Rule III. Counsel opted

to circumvent this requirement by unilaterally filing the ex parte motion. Plaintiff’s

incarceration does not make communication impossible or excuse counsel from treating 

Plaintiff like any other litigant.

Finally, counsel unjustifiably assumes that Plaintiff, being incarcerated, will not be 

prejudiced by the requested continuance. This is an assumption that the Court is not 

prepared to make. 

The Court therfore finds that Defendants have not shown good cause for the 

requested extension.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons state in this order, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-02334-WVG Document 78 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 3