Sieloff v. Stryker Corporation et al

Filing 27

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Stipulation to amend the Rule 16 Order 26 . (See attached PDF for details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 5/1/13. (JAMA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ryan Sieloff,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Stryker Corporation, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-01834-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16
The court has before it a Stipulation to amend the expert disclosure dates and the
17
discovery cut off date in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. (Doc. 26). The parties say they have
18
scheduled a mediation in June and want a two month extension to avoid expenses. But at our
19
Rule 16 conference held on February 22, 2013, the court expressly advised the parties “that
20
once we put our Rule 16 scheduling order in place, we don’t amend it to accommodate either
21
settlement negotiations, discussions, or obviously the schedule of private mediators.” We
22
therefore advised the parties that if they chose private mediation over a settlement conference
23
conducted by a magistrate judge, they should do that “sooner rather than later.” In response,
24
Mr. Pederson advised that the mediation would take place in April. The court responded
25
“that’s early enough to be consistent with the schedule.”
26
Once a Rule 16 Order is entered, it is not to be amended except for good cause. Rule
27
16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P. Diligence is the hallmark of good cause. There is nothing
28

1

incompatible about proceeding on two paths in parallel play. If the parties choose a

2

mediation two months after they said they would, they bear the burden of litigating and

3

settling simultaneously. It is unreasonable to think that a court should modify its schedule

4

to accommodate the schedule of a private mediator. The tail does not wag the dog. The

5

parties, the lawyers and the mediator must modify their schedules to meet the demands of the

6

Rule 16 Order. There is no showing of diligence here. The docket shows the parties have

7

done virtually nothing since the Rule 16 Order was entered. Then, in the face of an express

8

warning from the court, they schedule a mediation in June and have the temerity to file a

9

motion seeking a modification.

10

Nothing settles cases more effectively than the enforcement of firm, but fair,

11

deadlines. No good cause having been shown, it is ORDERED DENYING the Stipulation

12

to amend the Rule 16 Order. (Doc. 26).

13

DATED this 1st day of May, 2013.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-