Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00557/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00557-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WANI J. KOSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

H. SIEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00557-KES-CDB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 32)

Plaintiff Wani J. Kose is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to 

protect claim against Defendant Saiz and his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs claims against Defendants Negre and Walker.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on January 3, 2024. (Doc. 24.) 

Relevant here, the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions was set for November 12, 2024. 

(Id.) 

On November 12, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Modify the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order. (Doc. 32.)

//

//

Case 1:23-cv-00557-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 11/14/24 Page 1 of 3
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

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants’ Motion

Defendants seek a 60-day extension of the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions to 

January 11, 2025. (Doc. 32.) The motion is supported by the Declaration of Patricia M. Kealy. 

(Doc. 32-1.) Ms. Kealy was assigned to represent Defendants on October 3, 2024. (Id., ¶ 3.) She 

has been fully engaged in familiarizing herself with the case, investigating Plaintiff’s allegations, 

and “drafting a dispositive motion to the extent possible.” (Id.) Defense counsel states that since 

being assigned to this case, her workload in other matters has impacted her ability to “thoroughly 

analyze the viability of and complete a dispositive motion on behalf of Defendants.” (Id., ¶ 4.) 

Specifically, Ms. Kealy recently prepared for, traveled to, and participated in an evidentiary 

hearing involving nine witnesses, prepared for and conducted a deposition, and filed “multiple 

oppositions to motions,” in four other actions filed in this Court. (Id.) Further, Ms. Kealy declares 

her workload in other matters will continue to impact her ability to complete a summary judgment 

motion in this action because over the next six weeks she will prepare for and attend depositions 

in two actions filed in this district, prepare for and attend a settlement conference in another, and 

draft an answering brief in a matter pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id., ¶ 5.) 

Counsel contends additional time in needed “to fully assess the viability of a dispositive motion 

and complete such motion on behalf of Defendants.” (Id., ¶ 6.) This is Defendants’ first request to 

modify the scheduling order and counsel believes good cause exists to extend the filing deadline 

to January 11, 2024. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.) Counsel declares this motion is not brought for any improper 

purpose or to delay or harass Plaintiff in the prosecution of the action, nor will the requested 

extension significantly impact the progress of the case or unfairly prejudice Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 9.) 

Applicable Legal Standards

District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the course of 

litigation under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 

F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012). A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good 

cause and by leave of Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), (b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In considering whether a party moving for a 

Case 1:23-cv-00557-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 11/14/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

schedule modification has shown good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the 

party seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory 

committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). When an act must be done within a specified time, the 

court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if 

a request is made, before the original time expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). 

Analysis

Requests for extensions of time in the Eastern District of California are governed by Local 

Rule 144, which provides: “Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or 

from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent.” 

L.R. 144(d) (emphasis added). Here, given counsel’s representations concerning the extensive 

and time-consuming preparation required of her in other matters, it should have become apparent 

before the dispositive motion filing deadline of November 12, 2024, that an extension was 

needed. Therefore, under Local Rule 144, Defendants were required to file their current motion to 

modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order before now. 

The Court disfavors granting nunc pro tunc and ex parte relief and directs Defendants to 

exercise better care in anticipating any future requests for extensions of time and filing such 

requests well before the terminal filing date that they seek to extend. Nevertheless, given defense 

counsel’s representations in her declaration, the Court finds good cause to grant the relief 

requested.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 32) is GRANTED; and

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to extend the deadline for the 

filing of dispositive motions from November 12, 2024, to January 11, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00557-KES-CDB Document 33 Filed 11/14/24 Page 3 of 3