Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00908/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00908-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JASON P. SHURNAS; HORIZON 

COMPANIES, LLC; HORIZON 

FINANICIAL, LLC; 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JAN LYNN OWEN, in her 

official capacity as 

Commissioner of the 

CALIFORNIA DEPARMTMENT OF 

BUSINESS OVERSIGHT (formerly 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS); 

and THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00908-GEB-DAD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER TO 

STAY DISCOVERY 

Defendants move to stay all pending discovery 

obligations until thirty days following this court’s ruling on 

Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. However, the motion seeks 

amendment to the discovery completion provision in the Scheduling 

Order filed on July 28, 2015, which requires Defendants to evince 

that good cause justifies any amendment to that Order. (Status 

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order, ECF No. 9.) Specifically, Rule 16(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes: “[a] schedule 

shall not be modified except by leave of ... [court] upon a 

showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b). Defendants have not 

Case 2:15-cv-00908-MCE-DB Document 19 Filed 09/17/15 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 

satisfied this amendment standard. Therefore Defendant’s motion 

to stay discovery is denied. 

Dated: September 17, 2015 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00908-MCE-DB Document 19 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2