Marvin Cardenas v. Butler, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARVIN CARDENAS, No. 2:23-cv-0500 TLN AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER BUTLER, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking an extension of 45-69 days to file motions to compel. ECF No. 49. Defendants have not filed an opposition. Because this request, if granted, would also require a modification to the deadline to file dispositive motions, the court construes this motion as a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order. To prevail on a request to amend a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4), the moving party must establish “good cause” for doing so. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause inquiry primarily centers on the moving party’s diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend the discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the…