Marvin Cardenas v. Butler, et al.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 MARVIN CARDENAS, No. 2:23-cv-0500 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUTLER, et al., 15 Defendants. — 16 — 17 Defendants have filed an Ex Parte Application for Permission to File Two Summary 18 Judgment Motions. ECF No. 50. Because this request, if granted, would also require a 19 modification to the scheduling order, the court construes this motion as a motion to modify the 20 scheduling order. 21 To prevail on a request to amend a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4), the moving 22 party must establish “good cause” for doing so. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 23 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause inquiry primarily centers on the moving 24 party’s diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 , 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good 25 cause to extend the discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence 26 of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “Although the existence or degree 27 of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a 28 motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. 1 (citation omitted). “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. “[C]arelessness is 2 not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Id. 3 Defendants argue that the court should allow them to file two separate summary judgment 4 motions, one on procedural grounds and a second on the merits because a motion on the 5 procedural grounds would likely dispense of claims against five defendants and potentially 6 against the two remaining defendants as well. ECF No. 50 at 3. Defendants claim that allowing 7 them to proceed with two motions would save the parties and the court “time and effort in having 8 to file a later dispositive motion that would include the procedural defense and all other possible 9 merits defenses, for Defendants/claims that should be dismissed from the complaint.” Id. at 4. 10 Defendants also argue that they have been diligent in making this request because they filed it 11 before the present deadline for dispositive motions, and that they would be prejudiced if not 12 allowed to file a second motion for summary judgment. Id. The court disagrees. 13 The timing of the present motion defeats defendants’ efficiency argument. On April 3, 14 2025, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order setting the following deadlines: all 15 requests for discovery were due no later than May 26, 2025; discovery was to be completed by 16 and motions to compel where to be filed by July 25, 2025; and all pretrial motions, including 17 motions for summary judgment, were due no later than October 17, 2025. ECF No. 34 at 6. The 18 court previously modified the scheduling order based on plaintiff’s timely requests. ECF Nos. 40, 19 43, 49. When defendants’ filed their ex parte motion on December 12, 2025, plaintiff’s third 20 motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order was pending; the deadline to complete 21 discovery and file motions to compel, November 3, 2025, had passed; and the deadline to file 22 dispositive motions was one month away. See ECF Nos. 43, 49, 50. Had defendants filed their 23 motion prior to the close of discovery, the court might have granted the motion for good cause 24 because discovery could have been limited at that time to procedural issues. The parties could 25 thus have saved time and resources, the court could have reached the procedural issues at an 26 earlier date, and if not dispositive of the entire case, narrowed the issues for discovery on the 27 merits and allowed for a second motion for summary judgment. However, filing two motions for 28 summary judgment after the close of all discovery would no longer lead to a speedy and/or 1 || mexpensive resolution. Cf. Bahena v. Rodriguez, No. 1:20-cv-1685 AWI SAB (PC), 2022 WL 2 | 319977, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022) (finding good cause to modify the discovery and 3 || scheduling order where defendants were diligent “in bringing the motion for summary judgment 4 | and in bringing the instant motion well before the close of discovery,” the parties could avoid 5 || “expenditure of resources . . . in conducting discovery and filing motions concerning the merits of 6 || the case,” and there was “an immediate and clear possibility” that the motion for summary 7 || judgment concerning exhaustion [would] dispose of the case in its entirety”). Additionally, 8 | despite defendants’ argument to the contrary, they would not be prejudiced by filing a single 9 || motion for summary judgment by the dispositive motion deadline, which has been extended from 10 || January 26, 2026, to April 8, 2026. See ECF No. 51. 11 For these reasons, the court finds that defendants have not established good cause for 12 || modifying the scheduling order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 13 1. Defendants’ ex parte motion for permission to file two summary judgment motions (ECF 14 No. 50) is construed as a motion to modify the scheduling order and is DENIED. 15 2. Defendants shall file a single motion for summary judgment on all issues they seek to 16 resolve via summary judgment by April 8, 2026. 17 | DATED: December 23, 2025 * Ig ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —