Jones
Jones v. Vallejo
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 SCARLETT ANN JONES, an No. 2:22-cv-01574 WBS JDP individual, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION v. TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 15
CITY OF VALLEJO, VALLEJO POLICE
16 DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE MURPHY, and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Defendants. 18
19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Defendants move to modify the scheduling order. 21 (Docket No. 31.)1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), 22 “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 23 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Unlike Rule 24 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith 25 of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice 26 to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard 27 1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral 28 argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 1 primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 2 amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth…