Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00760/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00760-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JON CHRIST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. BLACKWELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-0760 EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to have the case heard by the undersigned. ECF Nos. 

4, 14, 134. Currently pending before the court is a request to modify the schedule filed by 

defendants Blackwell, Broyles, Lopez, Voight, and Zuniga. ECF No. 179. Although the court 

finds that defendants have not shown good cause for their failure to comply with the existing 

schedule, as discussed below, interests of judicial economy require that the schedule be revised 

due to counsels’ lack of diligence. Although these circumstances have necessitated a revised 

schedule, defense counsel is ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failure 

to comply with the previous scheduling order. 

I. Background 

Plaintiff filed this action in Santa Clara County Superior Court on January 5, 2010. ECF 

No. 1-1. Defendants removed the case to federal court. ECF 1. The case had progressed through 

Case 2:10-cv-00760-EFB Document 190 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 4
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

discovery and the filing of pretrial statements when the court discovered that two named 

defendants – Weiglein and Roszko – had not responded to the complaint. See ECF No. 101. 

Plaintiff informed the court that he was pursuing his claims against Weiglein in a separate action 

and the court accordingly dismissed him from this action. ECF No. 106. After a long process 

that need not be recounted here (see id. at 2), defendant Roszko was properly served with the 

complaint. ECF No. 135. The court then issued a revised schedule governing discovery and 

dispositive motions “so that plaintiff and defendant Roszko may engage in discovery and pretrial 

motions with respect to plaintiff’s claims against defendant Roszko.” ECF No. 145 at 1. 

On December 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment addressing all of 

plaintiff’s claims against all defendants. ECF No. 159. Defendants did not seek relief from the 

schedule (which governed all of them except Roszko) requiring that dispositive motions be filed 

not later than April 22, 2011. ECF No. 19. Defendants argued that that they filed a motion 

addressing all claims against all defendants because they “were unable to determine which claims 

or causes of actions were directed to which defendant.” ECF No. 161. The court found this 

representation disingenuous, as plaintiff’s claims against defendant Roszko and the other 

defendants are easily differentiated. Because defendants Blackwell, Broyles, Lopez, Voight, and 

Zuniga did not show good cause why they did not comply with the April 22, 2011 deadline, the 

court declined to consider their arguments. ECF No. 176 at 2-3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) 

(“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”) and Johnson 

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that a motion to 

modify the schedule must be supported by a showing of good cause; i.e., that the schedule could 

not have been met despite the moving party’s diligence)). The court noted that, if these 

defendants wanted to seek summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims against them, they were 

required to file a motion for modification of the schedule, supported by a showing of good cause. 

Id. Defendants have now filed such a motion. ECF No. 179. 

II. The Motion to Modify the Schedule 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that a scheduling order “may be 

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Good cause is shown where the 

Case 2:10-cv-00760-EFB Document 190 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

schedule cannot be complied with despite the diligence of the party seeking the modification. 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Thus, the good cause standard focuses primarily on the diligence of 

the requesting party. Id. 

Defendants advance two reasons for modifying the schedule: (1) the policy favoring 

resolving cases by summary judgment to avoid unnecessary trials and (2) the “clarity on the legal 

and factual issues in this case” provided by the court’s order granting defendant Roszko’s motion 

for summary judgment. Neither of these reasons addresses the good cause standard summarized 

above; defendants have simply made no showing that, despite their diligence, the arguments they 

now seek to advance in their summary judgment motion could not have been advanced before the 

existing deadline. Defense counsel simply has not taken seriously the requirements of Rule 16 

and this court’s scheduling order. 

Counsel’s reliance on judicial economy as a substitute for the good cause showing 

demanded by Rule 16 distorts the burden counsel must meet, frustrates the court’s ability to 

schedule this case and manage its very heavy docket, and exhibits a disregard for this court’s 

orders. There is no question that cases that can be resolved by a timely and appropriate summary 

judgment motions should be so resolved. Nonetheless, it was defense counsel’s obligation to 

timely present such a motion. Instead, counsel appear to have elected to allow that deadline to 

pass without timely presenting their summary judgment and then, once defendant Roszko was 

served and provided a schedule within which to complete discovery and present a dispositive 

motion, hoped to take advantage of that as a substitute for their lack of diligence. Despite this 

lack of diligence, the court cannot justify holding a potentially unnecessary trial and will therefore 

order a modification. However, defense counsel are ordered to show cause why monetary 

sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the court’s earlier order. 

III. Order 

 For the reasons provided above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The September 23, 2015 motion to modify the schedule filed by defendants Blackwell, 

Broyles, Lopez, Voight, and Zuniga (ECF No. 179) is denied due to counsel’s failure 

to demonstrate good cause; 

Case 2:10-cv-00760-EFB Document 190 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

2. In the interest of avoiding a potentially unnecessary jury trial, the schedule is 

nonetheless modified as follows: The aforementioned defendants shall have 30 days 

from the date of this order to file their motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff shall 

have 21 days from the date of service of the motion to file an opposition, and 

defendants shall have 7 days from the date of the filing of plaintiff’s opposition to file 

a reply; and 

3. Counsel for defendants Blackwell, Broyles, Lopez, Voight, and Zuniga shall show 

cause in writing within 30 days why they should not be sanctioned for failing to 

adhere to the prior schedule. 

DATED: December 3, 2015. 

 

 

Case 2:10-cv-00760-EFB Document 190 Filed 12/03/15 Page 4 of 4