Rodriguez

(PC) Crane v. Rodriguez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 20192:15-cv-00208California674 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD CRANE, No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., Defendants. 16 I. Introduction Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Defendants Davey, Rodriguez, Probst, Barton and Robinette (group defendants)1 have moved to extend the dispositive motions deadline until thirty days after the court rules on plaintiff’s pending motion to compel. As set forth below, the undersigned grants the motion. II. Governing Standards “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Where a party requests to reopen discovery after discovery has closed, the request also must meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Rule 16(b)

Defendant Weeks is represented by separate counsel. 1 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.