Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-9/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

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

Brandon Meeks,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. Nunez, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13cv973-GPC-BGS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO AMEND THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

The case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed on March 16, 2015,

against defendants Nunez and Scott for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. (ECF No. 74.) On October 8, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling

Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings establishing pretrial

deadlines for the parties, including a deadline of May 2, 2016 for pretrial motions.

1

 (Id.) 

On January 19, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

(ECF No. 124), which the Court granted on February 29, 2016. (ECF No. 132.) 

Defendants’ current motion seeks an extension of the deadline to file pretrial motions set 

forth in the scheduling order. Defendants explain that Plaintiff has been placed in a crisis 

 

1 Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order lists that deadline as March 8, 2016. 

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 134 Filed 03/10/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

unit housing facility, and as a result, they are unable to schedule his deposition. (Id.; see 

also ECF No. 133-2 at ¶ 4.) Because Defendants do not know when they will be able to 

schedule Plaintiff’s deposition, they seek an extension of the pretrial motion deadline. 

(ECF No. 133-1.) Defendants propose a new deadline for pretrial motions of April 21, 

2016. (ECF No. 133-1 at 5.)

II. RELEVANT LAW

In general, the pre-trial scheduling order can only be modified “upon a showing of 

good cause.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 

1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)). “The pretrial schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson, 

975 F.2d at 609. If the party seeking the modification was not diligent, the schedule 

should not be modified. Id.; see also Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants appear to be confused regarding the dates in the scheduling order. 

Whereas Defendants’ motion states a deadline of March 8, 2016 for pretrial motions, the 

deadline is actually May 2, 2016. (See ECF No. 109 at 3 “All other pretrial motions, 

including those addressing Daubert issues related to dispositive motions must be filed by 

May 2, 2016.”) The Court is not aware of any deadlines on March 8, 2016.2 Because the 

deadline for pretrial motions is on May 2, 2016, the Court finds that Defendants’ request 

for an extension is premature and they have not shown good cause to warrant amending 

the scheduling order at this juncture. Moreover, the date Defendants suggest as the new 

deadline, April 21, 2016, is over a week before the actual deadline of May 2, 2016. The 

Court, therefore, DENIES Defendants’ motion. 

///

 

2 The Court notes a deadline for the exchange of rebuttal experts on March 7, 2016, but Defendants 

specifically state that the only deadline “immediately impacted” by Plaintiff’s placement in the crisis 

unit is the “cut-off date for the filing of motions pursuant to FRCP 56(b).” (ECF No. 133-1 at 5.)

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 134 Filed 03/10/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

13cv973-GPC-BGS

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

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 10, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 134 Filed 03/10/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3