1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICIA BELLOWS, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00300-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 13 v. MODIFY THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 K. VANG, et al., (Doc. 51) 15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff Patricia Bellows is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to

. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s constitutional claims 19 against Defendants M. Valerio, J. Villalobos, and A. Vogel.1 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on April 11, 2025. (Doc. 45.) 22 On May 5, 2025, this action was reassigned to the undersigned for all further purposes, 23 including trial and entry of judgment. (Doc. 47.) 24 On August 8, 2025, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application to Modify Scheduling 25 Order, Vacate the Exhaustion Motion for Summary Judgment Deadline (MSJ), and Allow 26 Defendants to File a Singular Summary Judgment Motion on Both the Merits and Exhaustion, if 27

11 1 Applicable. (Doc. 48.) On August 11, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ request in part. (Doc. 2 49.) Specifically, it declined to combine the deadline for exhaustion-based and merits-based 3 summary judgment motions and extended the deadlines for filing an exhaustion motion, the 4 completion of discovery, and filing a merits-based dispositive motion. (Id. at 2-3.) 5 On November 6, 2025, Defendants filed a second request to modify the Discovery and 6 Scheduling Order, asking the Court to vacate the presently set deadlines, including the 7 exhaustion-based motion deadline set for November 10, 2025, pending resolution of their motion 8 to compel written discovery from Plaintiff. (Doc. 51.)2 The Court deems any response by Plaintiff 9 unnecessary. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 Defendants ask the Court to modify the scheduling order by vacating the exhaustion-based 12 summary judgment motion filing deadline, the deadline to complete discovery, and the merits- 13 based summary judgment motion filing deadline. Defendants assert they may be prejudiced 14 absent such modification “by not being able to obtain all information in assessing each and every 15 defense available to them in this case,” and state they may require additional time and resources 16 where “Plaintiff may fail to prosecute, or otherwise follow Court orders in, which may result in 17 sanctions, including dismissal, which would be a waste of resources.” Defendants’ request is 18 supported by the Declaration of Brittany Boiko. 19 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 20 be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 21 good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 22 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify 23 the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 24 extension.”

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

25 The Court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order. It will vacate the relevant 26 deadlines pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to compel written responses from Plaintiff.3 27 2 That same date, Defendants filed a motion to compel. (Doc. 50.) 1 | Following resolution of the motion, the Court will issue a new scheduling order, resetting the 2 | relevant discovery and motion deadlines. 3 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 For good cause shown, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 5 1. Defendants’ ex parte application to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 51) is 6 GRANTED; 7 2. The Discovery and Scheduling Order issued April 11, 2025 (Doc. 45) is VACATED; 8 and 9 3. The Court will issue a new scheduling order, resetting the relevant deadlines, 10 following resolution of Defendants’ pending motion to compel. 11 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ November 7, 2025 | Ww Vv R~ B UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

See Local Rule 230().