Petosyan v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 99

ORDER GRANTING 98 Stipulation to Allow the Depositions of S. Zamora, M. Ali and N. Grannis to be Taken Out of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/14/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARTHUR PETROSYAN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
HEDGPETH, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00593 AWI JLT
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO ALLOW
THE DEPOSITIONS OF S. ZAMORA, M. ALI
AND N. GRANNIS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF TIME
(Doc. 98)

Before the Court is the stipulation of the parties to allow the depositions of S. Zamora, M. Ali

18

and N. Grannis to be taken after the discovery deadline. (Doc. 98) The parties explain that Zamora

19

and Ali are available for deposition “in early May” and that Grannis, who is now retired, is “not

20

available to be deposed until May.” Id. at 2.

21

Notably absent from the deposition is information as to the diligence of Plaintiff in seeking to

22

set these depositions. Indeed, the Court recalls that at the mid-discovery status conference, held on

23

March 5, 2014, Plaintiff had failed to conduct any discovery at that point, except that completed

24

before counsel was retained, and had violated the Court’s order by failing to make his initial disclosure

25

by January 31, 2014. (Doc. 92; Doc. 94; Doc. 97) Despite this, counsel reported that the discovery

26

would be completed by the May 1, 2014 deadline. (Doc. 97) Based what appeared to be a studied lack

27

of diligence, the Court ordered, “Counsel are advised that the Court does not anticipate authorizing

28
1

1

any amendments to the schedule and they are expected to complete all non-expert discovery as set

2

forth in the scheduling order.” Id.

3

The stipulation reports that Plaintiff has not taken the depositions of three of the Defendants by

4

the May 1, 2014 deadline. The Court is not surprised by this turn of events given the lack of discovery

5

efforts made before now and, except for Defendants’ willingness to accommodate this current request,

6

the Court would not extend the deadline. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610

7

(9th Cir. 1992) (“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

8

seeking the amendment . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”)

9

ORDER

10

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

11

1.

The stipulation of counsel is GRANTED. The depositions of S. Zamora, M. Ali and

12

N. Grannis SHALL be completed, if they are taken, no later than May 30, 2014.

13

Counsel is advised that the Court will not entertain any further requests to modify the

14

scheduling order absent a showing of exceptional good cause.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 14, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2