Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01202/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01202-19/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEON E. MORRIS, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

NANGALAMA, et al. , 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cv-01202-MCE-KJN 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

DISCOVERY AND REVISED 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

Defendants seek a third extension of time in which to file a motion for summary judgment. 

Defendants are awaiting finalization of their expert declaration from Dr. Galen Church, who is 

currently on vacation and cannot provide his signed declaration. Defendants aver that good cause 

exists because if defendants are successful on their motion for summary judgment, the case will 

be resolved in its entirety, and contend that defendants will be prejudiced if the motion is not 

granted. 

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 

Case 2:12-cv-01202-MCE-KJN Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 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 

‘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, 975 F.2d at 607). 

In the April 22, 2016 order, defendants were advised that no further extensions of this 

deadline would be granted. (ECF No. 87 at 2.) However, defendants seek a brief extension, and 

are unable to file their motion without Dr. Church’s signed declaration. Because the extension is 

necessitated by the absence of Dr. Church, and not for an improper purpose, the undersigned 

finds good cause to grant defendants’ motion to modify the discovery and revised scheduling 

order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 88) is granted; and 

2. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to May 17, 2016. In all other 

respects, the August 13, 2015 discovery and scheduling order remains in effect. 

Dated: May 13, 2016 

/cw/morr1202.16b3 

Case 2:12-cv-01202-MCE-KJN Document 89 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 2