1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN-MAX DARBOUZE, Case No. 2:23-cv-1419 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 13 DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR AN v. EXTENSION OF TIME AND REVISED 14 SCHEDULING ORDER 15 SPENCER, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. Before the Court is the application of defendants J. Spencer, Ph.D. and Dr. R. Kim 20 (“defendants”) for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment.1 As discussed 21 below, defendants’ application is granted. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Due to difficulties in clarifying defendant Kim’s true name, service of process on 24 defendant Kim was delayed. On March 5, 2025, defendant Kim’s motion to modify the discovery 25 and scheduling order was granted, and the discovery and pretrial motions deadlines were 26 continued to July 7, 2025, and September 29, 2025, respectively. (ECF No. 50.) 27 1 Defendants styled their application, “Ex Parte.” However, the application is not made ex parte, 28 as this application was mailed to plaintiff at his last known address of record. (ECF No. 62 at 7.) ] Defendant Kim filed an answer on May 12, 2025. (ECF No. 57.) On June 17, 2025, 2 || defendants’ motion for extension of time to complete discovery and revise the scheduling order 3 || was granted, and the discovery deadline was extended to August 6, 2025. (ECF No. 59.) The 4 | September 29, 2025 pretrial motions deadline remained the same. (Id.) 5 Discovery is now closed. On September 23, 2025, defendants filed an application for an 6 || extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62.) Counsel needs 7 || additional time to obtain declarations from defendants, and to complete investigations to support 8 | arguments in their putative summary judgment motion. 9 | IL. GOVERNING STANDARDS 10 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” 11 | Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 12 || quotation marks omitted). Rule 16(b) provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good 13 || cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The schedule may be modified 14 | ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 15 | Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.,

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 16 || Johnson,

). 17 | Il. DISCUSSION 18 Defendants seek to extend the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment by forty- 19 || five days, to November 13, 2025. Having considered the application, the Court finds good cause 20 || for the requested extension and grants defendants’ application. The pretrial motions deadline is 21 || extended to November 13, 2025. 22 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Defendants’ application for an extension of time (ECF No. 62) is granted. 24 2. The pretrial motions deadline is extended to November 13, 2025. 25 3. other respects, the Discovery and Scheduling Order (ECF No. 41) remains in 26 effect. V0 - 0 . 27 | Dated: September 25, 2025 Cha Sp (EA 28 (Mdarb1419.16b3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE