Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01705/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01705-6/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

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

Plaintiff Sebastian Blount (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Pursuant to the July 17, 2014, Discovery and Scheduling Order, discovery closed on December 

15, 2014. The dispositive motion deadline is February 12, 2015.

On December 19, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 

Order. Defendants seek a 21-day extension of the discovery deadline. The Court deems the matter 

suitable for decision without an opposition pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

DISCUSSION

Modification of the pretrial scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 

SEBASTIAN BLOUNT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv01705 AWI DLB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 33)

Discovery Deadline: January 16, 2015

Case 1:13-cv-01705-AWI-DLB Document 34 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 2
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

party seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If 

the party seeking the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify 

should not be granted.” Id. 

Here, Defendants explain that logistical considerations required that they notice Plaintiff’s 

deposition for December 15, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. However, on December 15, 2014, at approximately 

8:20 a.m., staff at California Men’s Colony notified counsel that Plaintiff was unable to attend his 

deposition because of a health concern.

Defendants anticipate that they will be able to meet the February 12, 2015, dispositive motion 

deadline.

For good cause, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. The discovery deadline is extended 

to January 16, 2015. The dispositive motion deadline will remain February 12, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01705-AWI-DLB Document 34 Filed 12/22/14 Page 2 of 2