Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00783/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00783-22/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY R. XAVIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. FRENCH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:09-cv-0783 KJM CKD P

ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff’s April 28, 2015 motion to re-open discovery (ECF No. 101), 

which closed on April 10, 2015. (ECF No. 93.) Defendants do not oppose the motion, so long as 

they may also conduct discovery during the extended period. (ECF No. 102.) Defendants request 

that the dispositive motion deadline be extended accordingly. (Id.) 

Modification of the court’s scheduling order to allow further discovery requires a showing 

of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence, 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). To establish good 

cause, the party seeking the modification of a scheduling order must generally show that even 

with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the requirement of the order. Id. The court 

may also consider the prejudice to the party opposing the modification. Id. If the party seeking 

to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence the inquiry should end and the court 

should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 

Case 2:09-cv-00783-KJM-CKD Document 103 Filed 05/29/15 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

1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, plaintiff has shown sufficient diligence for the court to grant his unopposed motion. 

Essentially, he served untimely discovery requests on defendants because, as a pro se litigant 

without access to legal materials, he misunderstood the discovery deadline. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to re-open discovery (ECF No. 101) is granted; 

2. Discovery is due by August 14, 2015. All requests for discovery shall be served not 

later than sixty days prior to that date. Any motions necessary to compel discovery shall be filed 

by that date; and 

3. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 

November 13, 2015.

Dated: May 29, 2015

2 / xavi0783.disc2

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00783-KJM-CKD Document 103 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 2