[GSA] Munoz et al v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation

Filing 69

ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/24/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

RAFAEL MUNOZ, et al,

) Case No.: 1:09-cv-00703 AWI JLT
)
Plaintiffs,
) ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER
)
v.
)
)
GIUMARRA VINEYARDS CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________ )

16
17

On August 19, 2011, the Court denied the parties’ stipulation to amend the scheduling order

18

related to briefing and discovery of the class certification motion. (Doc. 67) On August 23, 2011,

19

the Court conducted an informal telephonic hearing, at the request of counsel. At the hearing,

20

counsel provided additional detail explaining their need for the amendments. In particular, defense

21

counsel reported that he had not anticipated the amount of the evidence submitted in support of the

22

motion nor the need to conduct discovery related to this evidence. Likewise, counsel reported that

23

he had not anticipated the number of complicated issues raised in the motion. Finally, counsel

24

reported that unanticipated issues in other matters had reduced the amount of time that he calendar

25

and his co-counsel had, thus far, to devote to formulating the opposition.

26

In addition, counsel reported that they had agreed, as set forth in the stipulation filed on

27

August 16, 2011, to the parties taking limited depositions of the declarants supporting and opposing

28

the motion for class certification. In particular, counsel reported that they had made great efforts to
1

1

come to an accommodation that they believed would allow both sides to conduct additional, limited

2

discovery of issues raised by the declarants and were committed to completing this discovery without

3

the need for future court intervention. Finally, Plaintiffs’ counsel reported that they anticipated that

4

the opposition to the motion for class certification would be extensive which would require

5

additional time to prepare a full reply.

6
7
8

According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), the Court finds GOOD CAUSE to amend the
scheduling order. Therefore, the Court ORDERS the following amendments to the scheduling order:
1.

9

The hearing on the motion for class certification (Doc. 42) is continued to December
29, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the United States Bankruptcy Courtroom at 1300 18th Street,

10

Bakersfield, California. The parties may appear by CourtCall but, if they choose to

11

do so, they SHALL file a notification of their intention to appear by telephone no

12

later than December 15, 2011;

13

2.

Defendant’s opposition to the motion for class certification SHALL be filed no later

14

than September 30, 2011 and any reply SHALL be filed no later than December 9,

15

2011;

16

3.

No other deadlines set forth in the scheduling order are ordered modified by this

17

order. Moreover, the Court reiterates that the amendments granted herein, in no way

18

implies its willingness or agreement to modify any further deadlines set forth in the

19

scheduling order and counsel is advised to use diligence to meet those deadlines;

20

4.

No further modification to the briefing schedule or the hearing date for the

21

motion for class certification will be granted absent a showing of exceptional

22

good cause.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: August 24, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2