Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01343/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01343-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Monaco Bazzo
Plaintiff
Bobbola
Defendant
S. Gates
Defendant

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

FRANK MONACO BAZZO,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. GATES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO MODIFY NUNC PRO TUNC 

THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

ORDER

(Doc. 62) 

Plaintiff Frank Monaco Bazzo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on December 11, 2023. (Doc. 53.) 

Relevant here, the deadline for the filing of a dispositive motion was set for October 21, 2024. 

(Id.) 

On October 21, 2024, Defendants Bobbola and Gates filed a Motion to Modify the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 62.) The motion is supported by a memorandum of points 

and authorities (see Doc. 62-1 at 1-3) and the Declaration of Matthew Wilson (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 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 63 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, Defendants contend good cause exists to grant the motion to modify the Discovery 

and Scheduling Order as defense counsel has been diligently litigating this action, including 

completing Plaintiff’s deposition, and investigating the evidence and grounds for a summary 

judgment motion. (Doc. 62-1 at 2.) Defendants seek to extend the dispositive motion filing 

deadline to November 12, 2024. (Id.)

Specifically, Mr. Wilson declares he has been preparing for and in trial in the Hackworth 

v. Arevalos matter. (Doc. 62-1 at 3, ¶ 2.) The trial before District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff 

concluded on October 18, 2024. (Id.) In preparing for and trying the Hackworth case, defense 

counsel states it required extensive and time-consuming travel, meetings with his client and 

witnesses, and work that prevented him from completing a motion for summary judgment in this 

action. (Id.)

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 concerning the extensive and time-consuming 

trial preparation undertaken in the Hackworth matter, it should have become apparent before the 

dispositive motion filing deadline of October 21, 2024, that an extension was needed. Therefore, 

under Local Rule 144, Defendants were required to file their current motion to modify the 

Discovery and Scheduling Order before now. 

The Court disfavors granting nunc pro tunc and ex parte relief and directs Defendants to 

exercise better care in anticipating any future requests for extensions of time and filing such 

requests well before the terminal filing date that they seek to extend. Nevertheless, given defense 

counsel’s representations in his declaration, the Court finds good cause to grant the relief 

Case 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 63 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

requested.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

1. Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 62) is GRANTED; and

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

a dispositive motion from October 21, 2024, to November 12, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 63 Filed 10/21/24 Page 3 of 3