(PC) Rodriguez v. Clemmons

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSE DEJESUS RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:20-cv-00173-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND 13 v. SCHEDULING ORDER MICHELLE CLEMMONS, ECF No. 35 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff has filed a document styled as an ex parte motion and application for trial continuance, which requests that all deadlines be continued by 90 days. ECF No. 35. The court received and docketed plaintiff’s motion on December 14, 2020. Id. On December 9, 2020, five days before receipt of plaintiff’s motion, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order that provided, among other things, that the parties shall complete discovery by May 21, 2021 and file any dispositive motions by August 27, 2021. Plaintiff’s motion reflects that it was drafted and mailed prior to issuance of the scheduling order. See ECF No. 35 at 4. Thus, plaintiff was not aware of the various deadline set forth in the scheduling order at the time he prepared his motion.

25 Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 35, will therefore be denied without prejudice. Should plaintiff be unable to comply with scheduling order’s deadlines despite exercising reasonable diligence, he may renew his motion. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note (1983 amendment) (“The | district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the | diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”).

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 18, 2020 Q_——_.

6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE