Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02524/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02524-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID C. RIVERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2524 GEB EFB P

vs.

E. ROSZKO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a parolee, proceeds without counsel on a complaint alleging civil rights

violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants move to modify the schedule as amended on May

2, 2007. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.

A schedule may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good

cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising

due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Pursuant to the scheduling order as amended, defendants were to take plaintiff’s deposition no

later than June 18, 2007, and dispositive motions are to be filed no later than August 1, 2007. 

Defendants assert that on May 3, 2007, they served on plaintiff a notice that his deposition would

be taken May 25, 2007. Shortly thereafter, defendants’ counsel learned that plaintiff was “at

large.” Thus, on May 7, 2007, counsel notified plaintiff’s parole unit of their intention to take 

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 07/02/07 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

2

plaintiff’s deposition. On May 24, 2007, a parole agent notified counsel that plaintiff would be

arrested if he appeared for the deposition, and in fact plaintiff was arrested on May 25 before

counsel could take plaintiff’s deposition. As of June 1, 2007, when defendants filed their

motion, counsel did not know where plaintiff was confined. The court notes that it is plaintiff’s

responsibility to notify the court and all parties of his current address. Local Rules 83-182(f),

83-183(b)(emphasis added). Thus, despite the efforts described above, defendants could not take

plaintiff’s deposition by the time set in the May 2, 2007, order. Furthermore, defendants cannot

be sure that they can take plaintiff’s deposition sufficiently in advance of August 1, 2007, in

order timely to file a dispositive motion.

The court finds that defendants were diligent in their attempt to take plaintiff’s deposition

and that they nonetheless could not comply with the deadline. Furthermore, they have

demonstrated that in all likelihood, they will not be able to comply with the date set for the filing

of dispositive motions despite diligence on their part.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ June 1, 2007, motion to modify the time for taking plaintiff’s deposition

and for filing dispositive motions is granted;

2. The June 18 and August 1, 2007, dates are vacated;

3. Within 30 days of the date of this order, defendants shall notify the court of whether

they are aware of plaintiff’s location and whether they are prepared to move forward with the

deposition and with dispositive motions.

Dated: July 2, 2007.

\

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 33 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2