Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00791/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00791-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

15cv791-DMS-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRIAN DEVERICK LEWIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CATES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 15cv791-DMS-MDD 

ORDER DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

[ECF No. 22] 

 On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the 

Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff notes that July 10, 2017, is 

the deadline by which all discovery must be completed in this matter 

and requests an additional 60 days to meet his discovery obligations. 

Plaintiff states he “is currently attempting to respond to Defendants 

[sic] discovery request as well as completing his discovery request for 

multiple Defendants in this matter.” (Id. at 2). He attaches a 

declaration stating that he “need[s]” the additional time to fulfill his 

discovery obligations. (Id. at 3). 

Case 3:15-cv-00791-DMS-MDD Document 23 Filed 07/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

15cv791-DMS-MDD 

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

District Courts have broad discretion to “manage the discovery 

process to facilitate prompt and efficient resolution of the lawsuit.” 

Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599 (1988). Scheduling Orders 

are issued pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure to limit the time to join parties, amend pleadings, complete 

discovery and file motions. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(1)-(3). Once in place, 

“[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 

consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” requirement 

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. 

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

1992). A party demonstrates good cause for the modification by 

showing that, even with the exercise of due diligence, he was unable to 

meet the deadlines set forth in the order. See Zivkovic v. So. Cal. 

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for modifying the Scheduling 

Order. He does not identify what discovery has been completed, what 

discovery remains pending, why the pending discovery has not already 

been completed, or what discovery Plaintiff intends to complete if an 

extension were granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-00791-DMS-MDD Document 23 Filed 07/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2