1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EARNEST S. HARRIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01800-JLT-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO MODIFY THE 13 v. DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 E. MUNOZ, et al., (Doc. 48) 15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff Earnest S. Harris is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to

. This action proceeds on the following claims: (1) excessive 19 force against Defendants Munoz and Arreguin; (2) deliberate indifference to serious medical 20 needs against Defendant Romero; (3) retaliation against Defendants Munoz and Arreguin; and (4) 21 a due process violation against Defendant Munoz. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On June 11, 2025, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 44.) The 24 order set deadlines for the completion of all discovery by November 11, 2025, and the filing of 25 pre-trial dispositive motions by January 12, 2026. (Id. at 1, 3.) 26 On November 7, 2025, Defendants filed an ex parte request to extend the deadline for the 27 completion of all discovery and to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Doc. 48.) 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may 3 be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This 4 good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 5 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The court may 6 modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 7 seeking the extension.”

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

8 Defendants request the Court extend the deadlines for the completion of all discovery to 9 December 12, 2025, and for the filing of dispositive motions to February 11, 2026. (Doc. 48.) 10 The request is supported by the Declaration of Audra C. Call, counsel for Defendants, setting 11 forth counsel’s diligent and repeated efforts to take Plaintiff’s deposition and to obtain Plaintiff’s 12 responses to Defendants’ written discovery requests. (Id. at 8-11.) The Court finds good cause 13 to grant Defendants’ request, and will extend the deadline for the completion of all discovery, 14 including motions to compel, and for the filing of dispositive motions. 15 Plaintiff is reminded of his obligations concerning discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). (See 16 also Doc. 5 at 1, 4-5 [First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case 17 issued 12/22/2021].) Plaintiff is expected to participate in a deposition1 and to timely respond to 18 written discovery propounded by Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, 33, 34. 19 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 21 1. Defendants’ request to modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 48) is 22 GRANTED; 23 2. The deadline for the completion of all discovery, including the filing of motions to 24 compel, is EXTENDED from November 11, 2025, to December 12, 2025; and 25 3. The deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is EXTENDED from January 12, 26 2026, to February 11, 2026. 27 1 Plaintiff’s deposition is presently set to take place on November 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. (See Doc. 48 at 5, 10.) 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: November 10, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27