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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?