Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00205/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00205-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lima
Defendant
Stanley V. Wells
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

STANLEY V. WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIMA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00205-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY NUNC PRO TUNC

THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(Doc. 35) 

Stanley V. Wells is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

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

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on December 7, 2023. (Doc. 33.) 

Relevant here, the deadline for the filing of a dispositive motion was set for October 18, 2024. 

(Id.) 

On October 18, 2024, Defendant Lima filed a Motion to Modify the Discovery and 

Scheduling Order. (Doc. 35.) The motion is supported by a memorandum of points and 

authorities (see Doc. 35-1 at 1-3) and the Declaration of Patricia M. Kealy (id. at 4-5).

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 

be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 

Case 1:22-cv-00205-KES-CDB Document 36 Filed 10/21/24 Page 1 of 3
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

good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 

the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Here, Defendant contends good cause exists to grant the motion to modify the Discovery 

and Scheduling Order as defense counsel has worked diligently to investigate Plaintiff’s claims, 

submit a responsive pleading, participate in a settlement conference, develop defenses, depose 

Plaintiff, and to “draft a dispositive motion to the extent possible.” (Doc. 35-1 at 2.) Defendant 

asserts defense counsel’s heavy workload impacts the time counsel can dedicate to this action. 

(Id.) Defendant seeks a 60-day extension of time within which to file a motion for summary 

judgment. (Id. at 2-3.)

Ms. Kealy declares that since deposing Plaintiff in mid-July, her workload in seven other 

matters pending in this district—including preparing for an evidentiary hearing involving seven 

witnesses, preparation for taking five depositions, and preparing and filing two dispositive 

motions—has impacted her ability to “thoroughly analyze the viability of and complete a 

dispositive motion on behalf of Defendant Lima” in this case. (Doc. 35-1 at 4, ¶ 6.) Further, 

defense counsel declares her workload in the next six weeks will continue to impact her ability to 

complete a motion in this action due to obligations—depositions and a settlement conference— in 

three other matters pending in this district, as well as an answering brief due in a matter pending 

before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id. at 4-5, ¶ 7.) Counsel declares Defendant has not 

previously sought to modify the scheduling order, and that the request is not made for the purpose 

of harassment, undue delay, or for any other improper reason. (Id. at 5, ¶¶ 9, 11.) Defendant seeks 

a 60-day extension of time to include December 17, 2024. (Id., ¶ 10.)

III. ANALYSIS

Requests for extensions of time in the Eastern District of California are governed by Local 

Rule 144, which provides: “Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or 

from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes 

apparent.” L.R. 144(d). Here, given counsel’s representations about the competing matters and 

Case 1:22-cv-00205-KES-CDB Document 36 Filed 10/21/24 Page 2 of 3
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

need for additional time, it should have become apparent before the due date for Defendant to file 

a dispositive motion that such an extension was needed, and, hence, under Local Rule 144, 

Defendant was required to file his current request for extension of time before now.

The Court disfavors granting nunc pro tunc relief and directs Defendant to exercise better 

care in anticipating any future requests for extensions of time and filing such requests well before 

the terminal filing date that he seeks to extend. Nevertheless, given counsel’s representations in 

support of her motion, the Court finds good cause to grant the relief requested.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 35) is GRANTED; and

2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to extend the deadline for filing 

a dispositive motion from October 18, 2024, to December 17, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00205-KES-CDB Document 36 Filed 10/21/24 Page 3 of 3