Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00589/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00589-17/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOB BEJARANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLISON, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00589 LJO DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER

(Document 111)

Plaintiff Bob Bejarano (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

April 12, 2011, and it now proceeds on Plaintiff’s February 8, 2012, Second Amended Complaint 

against Defendants M. Bejarano and O. Best for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 29, 2015. The dispositive 

motion deadline is April 26, 2016.

Defendants’ December 16, 2015, motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion is 

pending. Since the filing of the motion, the Court has ruled on Plaintiff’s various motions and 

allowed Plaintiff a final extension of time to file an opposition. His opposition is due on or before

May 9, 2016.

On December 17, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay merits-based discovery 

pending the outcome of the exhaustion challenge.

On March 29, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Discovery and Scheduling 

Order. The Court deems the matter suitable for decision without an opposition.

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 112 Filed 04/04/16 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

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 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, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply 

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for 

seeking the modification.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “If the party seeking the modification ‘was 

not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic, 302 

F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Here, Defendants seek an extension of the dispositive motion deadline because, given the 

additional time afforded to Plaintiff, his date for opposing the motion for summary judgment is now 

after the dispositive motion deadline.

For good cause, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. The Court will reschedule merits-based 

discovery and the dispositive motion deadline if Plaintiff’s claims survive the exhaustion challenge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-DLB Document 112 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 2