Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00056-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

RICK HAZELTINE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRANCES HICKS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00056 DAD DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 

REQUEST TO MODIFY SCHEDULING 

ORDER

[ECF No. 45]

Discovery cut-off: July 25, 2016

Dispositive motion deadline: September 23, 

2016

Plaintiff Rick Hazeltine is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

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

On August 25, 2015, the Court issued a discovery and scheduling order in this matter. 

The discovery cut-off was set for January 25, 2016, and the dispositive motion deadline was set 

for March 24, 2016. On January 20, 2016, the parties filed a stipulated request to modify the 

discovery and scheduling order in order to complete discovery. The Court granted the stipulated 

request and moved the discovery cut-off to March 24, 2016, and the dispositive motion deadline 

to May 24, 2016.

On May 19, 2016, the parties filed a stipulated request to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order to extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines by sixty (60) days. 

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 46 Filed 05/25/16 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

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, 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, the parties request modification in order to complete discovery. Plaintiff and 

Defendants state they inadvertently served untimely discovery requests. In addition, Plaintiff 

states he was unaware that his discovery to Defendants had been improperly propounded. The 

parties agree that modification of the scheduling order would prevent any undue prejudice 

because discovery of evidence by both parties would be disallowed if modification was not 

granted. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the discovery and scheduling order is 

modified: the discovery cut-off deadline is moved to July 25, 2016; and the dispositive motion 

deadline is moved to September 23, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA Document 46 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2