Wilson v. Segovia

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILSON, Case No.: 19-cv-2254-LAB-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SEGOVIA, et al., MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 15 Defendants. ORDER [ECF No. 12] 19 On June 26, 2020, Defendants moved ex parte to modify the scheduling order regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 12).

21 On March 11, 2020, the court filed a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 9). On May 15, 2020, the Court granted defendants’ ex parte application to take the Deposition of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11).

25 Defendants now request to extend the scheduling order deadlines by sixty days, to September 2020. (ECF No. 12 at 3). In support, Defendants || Rehabilitation (““CDRC”) describing their request to continue all “hearings, || depositions, confidential calls, and in-person meetings through the end of || August 2020” due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 12 at ||6). Defendants point to the CDRC’s potential inability to accommodate || depositions in October or September 2020. Cd. at 2).

6 Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a schedule may be modified |\|“only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause’ g ||standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the ||amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th || Cir. 1992); Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. ||2012). Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that the Federal Rules of Civil || Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court 13 the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of ||every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 1.

15 Presently, the CDRC has requested continuances of all prisoner matters ||through August 2020. (ECF No. 12 at 6). The discovery cutoff is set for || October 12, 2020. (ECF No. 9). There is no exigency at this time, ||Defendants’ motion is premature. Accordingly, the Court DENIES || Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order WITHOUT || PREJUDICE.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2020 Mirdutr » : |. [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 25 United States Magistrate Judge