Marvin Cardenas v. Butler, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARVIN CARDENAS, No. 2:23-cv-0500 TLN AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER BUTLER, et al., Defendants. 16 Defendants have filed an Ex Parte Application for Permission to File Two Summary Judgment Motions. ECF No. 50. Because this request, if granted, would also require a modification to the scheduling order, the court construes this motion as a motion to modify the 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 extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “Although the existence…