Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00138/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00138-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH R. HUSKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00138-JLT (PC)

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 

EXTENDING DISCOVERY AND 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES 

NUNC PRO TUNC

(Doc. 25)

Discovery Cut-Off Deadline: 12/15/2016

Dispositive Motion Deadline: 02/24/2017

On September 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen discovery and extend the 

discovery deadline to December 15, 2016. (Doc. 25.) Defendants filed a statement of nonopposition in which they request that, if the discovery deadline is extended, that the Court extend 

the dispositive deadline to February 24, 2017. (Doc. 26.) 

I. Modification of Scheduling Order

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(3)(A), district courts must enter scheduling orders to 

establish deadlines for, among other things, to file motions and complete discovery. AA schedule 

may be modified only for good cause and with the judge=s consent.@ F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). This 

standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, there are a number of 

factors that may be considered such as: 

1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) 

whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the 

Case 1:15-cv-00138-JLT Document 27 Filed 09/07/16 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

moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines 

established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional 

discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, 

and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.

U.S. ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995) vacated on other 

grounds, 520 U.S. 939, 117 S. Ct. 1871 (1997) citing Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 169 

(10th Cir.1987). 

 Trial is not imminent and Defendants do not oppose the extension Plaintiff seeks. 

Further, Plaintiff’s request is based on his transfer to various medical facilities for procedures, 

care, and treatment for unforeseen and serious medical conditions. An extension of both the 

discovery cut-off and dispositive motion filing deadlines are appropriate. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to extend dates to modify the scheduling order, filed on

September 2, 2016, is GRANTED and the Discovery and Scheduling Order 

is MODIFIED as follows:

a. discovery is reopened and the deadline for completion of all 

discovery, including filing motions to compel is December 15, 

2016; and 

b. the deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is February 24, 

2017; and

(2) All other requirements of the original Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 

19) remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00138-JLT Document 27 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2