1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID W. WILSON, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00874-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ THIRD REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO 13 v. OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND TO FILE 14 STUART SHERMAN, et al., CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendants. (Doc. 73) 16

17 18 Plaintiff David W. Wilson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to

. The matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 20 conditions of confinement claims. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On March 27, 2025, Defendants filed a summary judgment motion contending Plaintiff 23 failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 50.)1 Plaintiff filed an opposition Doc. 56), and 24 Defendants filed a reply (Doc. 59). 25 On May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 61.)2 On May 28, 26 2025, Defendants filed a request for extensions of time to oppose Plaintiff’s summary judgment 27 1 This motion and accompanying documents total 949 pages. 1 motion and to file their cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 64.) The Court granted 2 Defendants’ request, directing that any opposition to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion be 3 filed by August 27, 2025, and modifying the Discovery and Scheduling Order to extend the 4 deadline for the filing of dispositive motions to August 25, 2025. (Doc. 64.) 5 On August 11, 2025, Defendants filed a second request for extensions of time to oppose 6 Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and to file a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 7 70.) The Court granted Defendants’ second request, directing that any opposition to Plaintiff’s 8 summary judgment motion be filed by August 27, 2025, and modifying the Discovery and 9 Scheduling Order to extend the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions to August 25, 2025. 10 (Doc. 64.) 11 On October 10, 2025, Defendants filed a third request for extensions of time to oppose 12 Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and to file a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 13 73.) 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 This Court’s Local Rule 144(b) states: “All motions for extensions of time shall set forth 16 the total period of extensions already obtained by the parties as to the particular matters for which 17 the extension is sought.” And, pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 18 scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. 19 Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 20 the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The 21 court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 22 party seeking the extension.”

If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

23 Defendants move for third extensions of time, to and including December 11, 2025, 24 within which to oppose Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to file a merits-based 25 motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 73.) The request is supported by the Declaration of Jean 26 Trenbeath. (Id. at 5-8.) Ms. Trenbeath states the current dispositive motion filing deadline is 27 October 27, 2025, and Plaintiff’s merits-based summary judgment motion filed May 8, 2025, 1 Ms. Trenbeath states all Defendants intend to move for summary judgment on those same claims. 2 (Id., at ¶ 10.) Defense counsel states that since the last request, she has spent most of her time as 3 lead counsel in an action filed in the Northern District, filing a second summary judgment motion 4 and a reply in support of the motion, as well as other pretrial motions in that action, and attending 5 a hearing on the motions held October 2, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Counsel also states she prepared a 6 reply brief in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a separate action filed in 7 the Northern District, oppositions to motions for injunctive relief in a separate action filed in this 8 district, as well as preparing for a September 26, 2025, settlement conference in an action pending 9 in the Central District that involves 16 defendants and numerous claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-14.) Ms. 10 Trenbeath states that because Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on his claims against all 11 Defendants, Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and their own summary judgment will 12 be largely duplicative. (Id., at ¶ 15.) She contends that filing of Defendants’ opposition to 13 Plaintiff’s pending summary judgment motion “at or near the filing of [Defendants’] cross-motion 14 for summary judgment would be a more efficient use of party and judicial resources” and would 15 allow her sufficient time to finish gathering needed declarations and evidence. (Id.) Counsel 16 contends that an extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion 17 and an extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline, up to and including December 11, 18 2025, should provide sufficient time to obtain the necessary declarations and to prepare the 19 opposition to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary 20 judgment. (Id., ¶17.) 21 Based on the foregoing, Defendants have established good cause for further extensions of 22 the deadline within which to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and to file 23 a cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court agrees judicial resources would be best served 24 by the instant request and Defendants’ request will be granted. 25 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 26 Accordingly, and for good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 27 1. Defendants’ request for extensions of time to oppose Plaintiff’s pending summary 1 GRANTED as follows: 2 a. Defendants SHALL file any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 3 judgment no later than December 11, 2025; 4 b. The Discovery and Scheduling Order is MODIFIED to extend the deadline for 5 the filing of dispositive motions from October 27, 2025, to December 11, 6 2025. No other deadlines are affected by this Order; and 7 c. Defendants SHALL file their cross-motion for summary judgment no later 8 than December 11, 2025. 9 2. Local Rule 230(l) shall continue to apply to any further oppositions and/or reply briefs 10 affected by this Order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: October 15, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27