GOMEZ v. BRAUN

No. 2:15-cv-2523-KJN (PC).

NEXIS RENE GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. D. BRAUN, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California, Sacramento Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Nexis Rene Gomez, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

D. Braun, Defendant, represented by Kevin William Reager , Attorney General's Office for the State of California & Peter Anthony Meshot , Office of the Attorney General.

N. D. Majumdar, Defendant, represented by Kevin William Reager , Attorney General's Office for the State of California & Peter Anthony Meshot , Office of the Attorney General.


ORDER MODIFYING DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Defendants Dr. Braun and Dr. Majumdar moved this Court for an order a limited modification of the Court's Discovery and Scheduling Order of January 4, 2017 (ECF No. 34), including the dates/deadlines for conducting the depositions of Plaintiff and up to three non-expert witnessed whose identities plaintiff may establish in his deposition, and for filing discovery motions relative to those depositions. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

"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 `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).

Defendants have shown good cause to continue the deadline for discovery based on the unexpected medical leave of former defense counsel. Defendants' request to extend the discovery deadline to June 14, 2017, is granted. In light of this extension, the dispositive motions deadline is continued to September 14, 2017. In all other respects, the January 4, 2017 discovery and scheduling order remains in effect.

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, Defendants' motion is granted as follows:

1. Plaintiff's deposition is to be completed by June 14, 2017;

2. The depositions of up to three non-expert witnesses who plaintiff may identify in his deposition as having knowledge to support his claims are to be completed by June 14, 2017;

3. Any discovery motion relative to the depositions listed above is to be filed by June 14, 2017; and

4. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before May 11, 2017.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases