Schauwecker et al v. Arizona, State of et al
Filing
108
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice the parties' Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendant Caldera to Disclose the Identity of His Expert Witness (Doc. 98 ). (See Order for details.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 7/29/2019. (SST)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Lisa Schauwecker, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-18-01062-PHX-DWL (ESW)
State of Arizona, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Extension of Time for
16
Defendant Caldera to Disclose the Identity of His Expert Witness (Doc. 98). Defendant
17
Caldera requests that the Court extend again the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses.
18
The Court issued its Case Management Order (Doc. 26) on August 1, 2018.
19
Defendants’ expert witness disclosure deadline was set for May 24, 2019 (Id. at 3). On
20
May 16, 2019, the Court extended Defendants’ expert witness disclosure deadline to June
21
7, 2019 for good cause shown (Doc. 93 at 1). The Court denied the parties’ request to stay
22
the deadlines in this case pending resolution of additional dispositive motions (Doc. 96).
23
The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. See
24
Zivhovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002). Under Rule
25
16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court is required to establish a
26
schedule that sets pretrial deadlines. A Rule 16 scheduling order may be “modified only
27
for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This is because
28
“[a] scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly
1
disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d
2
604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotations marks omitted). “Disregard of the
3
order would undermine the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon
4
course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and the cavalier.” Id. Rule 16(b)’s ‘good
5
cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Id.
6
at 609. If the movant “was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. “Moreover,
7
carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant
8
of relief.” Id.
9
If a pretrial schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking an
10
extension of time, the Court may modify its scheduling order. See MILLER & KANE,
11
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990) (good cause
12
means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s diligence). Prejudice to the
13
opposing party may supply additional reasons to deny an extension, but the focus of the
14
inquiry is on the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d
15
at 609. “Parties must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply strictly
16
with scheduling and other orders[.]” W o n g v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d
17
1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005).
18
The parties state no cause at all for further extension of Defendant Caldera’s expert
19
witness disclosure deadline, much less good cause. No due diligence has been shown, and
20
the inquiry ends.
21
22
23
24
25
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice the parties’ Stipulation for Extension
of Time for Defendant Caldera to Disclose the Identity of His Expert Witness (Doc. 98).
Dated this 29th day of July, 2019.
26
Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge
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?