Williams v. Cate, et al.
Filing
95
ORDER DENYING Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time and GRANTING the Parties' Request to Complete the Deposition of Plaintiff 94 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/13/11: Plaintiff's deposition shall be completed no later than October 31, 2011. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALLEN B. WILLIAMS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
Case No. 1:09-cv-00468 OWW JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
AND GRANTING THE PARTIES REQUEST
TO COMPLETE THE DEPOSITION OF
PLAINTIFF
v.
14
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
(Doc. 94)
/
17
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to amend the scheduling order to extend discovery and
18
the dispositive motion deadlines. (Doc. 94) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the
19
stipulation to amend the scheduling order.
20
I.
Background
21
On October 11, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to modify the Court’s July 7, 2011 scheduling
22
order. (Doc. 94) Defendants’ motion requests a 60-day extension of the current discovery deadline and
23
an extension of the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Defendants assert that these extensions are
24
necessary to allow Defendants the opportunity to depose Plaintiff to facilitate the parties’ settlement
25
discussions. (Doc. 94).
26
II.
Analysis
27
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause and
28
only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975
1
1
2
3
4
F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court explained,
. . . Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of the party
seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) . . .[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon
the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent,
the inquiry should end.
5
6
Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of
7
the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer,
8
163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties to
9
demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her
10
diligent efforts to comply . . .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608, emphasis added.
11
Here Defendants have failed to explain their delays in negotiating settlement. According to
12
Defendants’ moving papers, though Plaintiff’s proposed settlement was filed with the Court on June 23,
13
2011, over three months passed before Defendants contacted Plaintiff to discuss settlement.1 (Doc. 94
14
at 4). Morever, Defendants fail to demonstrate any efforts toward completing discovery in the time
15
frame allowed by the scheduling order. In fact, there is no showing that any discovery has occurred at
16
all. A reasonable inference, based upon the timing of this current motion–brought on the eve of the close
17
of the discovery–is that the need for the extension, is not wholly to discuss settlement, but to correct
18
Defendants’ lack of diligence in pursuing discovery before now. In this regard, it is noteworthy that
19
Defendants have not yet taken Plaintiff’s deposition. However, because Plaintiff has no objection to his
20
deposition being taken out of time, Defendants are granted until October 31, 2011, to complete
21
Plaintiff’s deposition.
22
The Court applauds the parties’ efforts and desire to settle this matter. However, given the
23
crushing case load faced by this Court, it cannot allow delayed settlement efforts to derail the progress
24
of this case. Thus, though the parties are encouraged to continue settlement discussions, they must do
25
so as they continue to pursue this litigation.
26
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
27
28
1
Likewise, the motion fails to demonstrate why settlement efforts would constitute good cause to amend the
scheduling order, in any event.
2
1
1.
2
3
4
Defendants’ October 11, 2011 motion is GRANTED IN PART to allow Plaintiff’s
deposition to be completed no later than October 31, 2011;
2.
In all other respects, Defendants’ October 11, 2011, motion to modify the scheduling
order is (Doc. 94), is DENIED.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: October 13, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?