(PC) McClintock v. Valencia

1 ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668 Attorney General of California JON S. ALLIN, State Bar No. 155069 Supervising Deputy Attorney General GARRETT L. SEUELL, State Bar No. 323175 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-6144 Fax: (916) 324-5205 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants G. Valencia, L. Cantu, T. Cooper, C. Weaver, K. Luther, L. Hadden, J. Cantu, J. Vega, T. Coker and J. Charon 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SACRAMENTO DIVISION JOHN MCCLINTOCK, 2:22-cv-1884 KJM CSK P Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER AND REVISED v. SCHEDULING ORDER G. VALENCIA, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On April 17, 2025, defendants filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 46.) As discussed below, defendants’ motion is granted.

Governing Standards “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.’”

2 || Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting | Johnson, 975 F.2d at 607).

4 | Discussion 5 The parties have met and conferred concerning plaintiff's responses to defendants’ || interrogatories and request for production of documents, and defendants anticipate filing a motion || to compel discovery responses. In addition, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is pending.

8 | Defendants seek to extend discovery solely as to these pending discovery disputes inasmuch as || the written discovery deadline expired on March 3, 2025, and defendants need the additional || discovery before taking plaintiffs deposition. The Court finds that the parties have been diligent | mn seeking discovery, and defendants have shown good cause to modify the scheduling order.

12 ORDER 13 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 46) is granted.

15 2. The deadlines to file a motion to compel and to depose plaintiff are extended to July 1, || 2025. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to August 29, 2025.

17 3. In all other respects, discovery is closed, and the scheduling and discovery order (ECF | No. 41) remains in effect unless otherwise modified by the Court.

19 || Dated: 04/18/25 C (i s 20 CHI S00 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 55 /V/mecl1 884.166