Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02166-6/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Timothy Bryan Brooks,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 02-2166 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoDefendants move to modify the schedule made August 25, 2005.

A scheduling order may be modified when the moving party

demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising due

diligence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

Defendants noticed plaintiff’s deposition for September 9,

2005. Plaintiff failed to appear and filed a motion for an order

preventing defendants from taking his deposition. October 7, 

2005, defendants filed and served a motion to compel plaintiff’s

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 64 Filed 01/25/06 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

2

deposition. November 29, 2005, the court denied plaintiff’s

motion. Pursuant to the scheduling order, discovery closed

December 23, 2005. 

Defendants assert they have not noticed plaintiff’s

deposition because I have not ruled on the October 7, 2005,

motion.

By separate order I deny defendants’ October 7, 2005, motion

for sanctions and direct plaintiff to appear for deposition once

duly noticed.

Accordingly, I find good cause to extend the time for taking

plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants shall duly notice and take

plaintiff’s deposition within 60 days of the date this order is

signed.

Dated: January 24, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02166-MCE -EFB Document 64 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2