National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Burton Olson Trucking Company et al

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING stipulated request for modification to scheduling order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/30/2010. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Burton Olson Trucking Company et al Doc. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 12 13 14 15 On November 9, 2010, the parties submitted a request for a schedule modification extending 16 all discovery deadlines in the case. On November 10, 2010, this request was denied because it was 17 not supported by good cause. 18 On November 29, 2010, the parties renewed their request for a modification to the schedule 19 stating that, although the parties had been diligent in completing discovery, the discovery in the case 20 generated "thousands of pages of relevant evidence that [] led to the need for additional depositions 21 and discovery." (Doc. 27-1 3.) Therefore, the parties request that the discovery deadlines be 22 extended as follows: 23 1. 24 2. 25 3. 26 4. 27 28 Expert Discovery January 31, 2011 Supp. Expert Disclosure January 14, 2011 Expert Disclosure December 23, 2010 All non-expert discovery December 10, 2010 BURTON OLSON TRUCKING COMPANY, et al., Defendants. / AMTRAK, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01190-OWW-SKO ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION TO SCHEDULING ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The obvious problem with these proposed dates is that altering the schedule as proposed renders the remaining dates in the schedule unworkable. For example, the non-dispositive motion filing deadline has already expired on November 23, 2010. Further, the dispositive motion filing deadline will expire on December 10, 2010, long before the parties' proposed discovery deadlines would expire. Finally, extending the deadlines for filing pre-trial motions to a time following the proposed discovery deadlines would necessarily conflict with both the pre-trial and the trial date of February 14, 2011, and March 29, 2011, respectively. While the Court is willing to extend the parties additional time to complete discovery, the currently proposed schedule modification cannot be accommodated given the trial date in place. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' request for an extension of the discovery deadlines is DENIED without prejudice. The parties may renew their request for a schedule modification following the settlement conference set for December 7, 2010. At that time the parties may be better situated to determine what issues or parties remain, if any, and may be better equipped to propose a schedule that is both workable and comprehensive with respect to all the scheduling deadlines and dates. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ie14hj November 30, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?