[DLB] Morales et al v. Stevco, Inc. et al

Filing 26

Order DENYING 25 Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/26/2011. (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

JOSE MORALES, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
STEVECO, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00704 LJO JLT
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO
AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 25)

16
17

Before the Court is the stipulation of the parties to amend the scheduling order. (Doc. 25) In

18

the stipulation, the parties report that they have had “preliminary settlement discussions and have

19

agreed to mediate this case” on July 27, 2011. Id. at 2. They do not explain why they have delayed

20

their settlement discussions but seek extensions of all deadlines set forth in the scheduling order that

21

have not already passed as a result. Id at 3. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the

22

stipulation to amend the scheduling order.

23

I.

24

The Scheduling Order
The Court conducted the scheduling conference on March 26, 2010. (Doc. 20) In preparation

25

for the conference, the parties filed a joint statement on February 9, 2010, in which they reported to

26

the Court, “The parties have discussed mediation and are in the process of moving forward with

27

medication.” (Doc. 18 at 5.) Also, the parties proposed deadlines to the Court for scheduling the

28

matter and sought a trial date in December 2011. Id. at 4. The Court issued the scheduling order
1

1

that roughly approximated the parties’ proposed schedule. (Doc. 20) Notably, in the scheduling

2

order, the Court admonished the parties,

3

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless
accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits,
which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

4
5

(Doc. 20 at 13.) Upon this backdrop, the Court will consider the parties’ request.

6

II.

7

Analysis
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause

8

and only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

9

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court explained,

10
11
12

. . . 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.

13
14

Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course

15

of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v.

16

Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the

17

parties to demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur,

18

notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which

19

could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling

20

conference . . .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608, emphasis added.

21

In the current stipulation the parties report that discovery has been “particularly difficult and

22

expensive.” (Doc. 25 at 2.) Moreover, they anticipate significant additional cost before completion

23

of discovery. Id. Also, they report that if the current case schedule remains in place, “various

24

deadlines would expire while the parties are preparing to mediate the case.” Id. They explain that

25

delaying the discovery deadlines to determine whether the matter may settle would avoid them

26

incurring costs that may turn out to be unnecessary, if the matter settles. Notably, the parties offer no

27

estimation of the likelihood that settlement can be achieved Most importantly, the parties do not

28

explain why the mediation–which was contemplated by them 15 months ago–is only now being
2

1
2

scheduled or why it cannot be completed sooner that two months hence.
Though the Court applauds the parties’ desire to resolve this matter and enthusiastically

3

encourages this pursuit, the Court also bemoans the resources that have been wasted already due to

4

the delay in scheduling the mediation and the waste of resources that will occur while mediation

5

efforts are underway. Unfortunately, however, this is a circumstance of the parties making. Because

6

the parties indisputably committed to pursue mediation more than 15 months ago, finally engaging in

7

it now is not an “unanticipated” circumstance that constitutes good cause to amend the scheduling

8

order. Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608. Therefore, the parties’ request to extend the discovery deadline

9

set forth in the scheduling order is DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: May 26, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3