Morales et al v. City of Delano et al

Filing 41

STIPULATION and ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/17/2011. (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
16

MANUELA CANCINO CONTRERAS
MORALES, et al,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF DELANO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )

Case No. 1:10-cv-1203-AWI-JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART STIPULATION TO
AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 40)

17
18

I.

Background

19

Before the Court is the joint request to amend the scheduling order to extend all deadlines

20

through the dispositive motion deadlines. (Doc. 40) The parties report that they are scheduled to

21

attend mediation on August 5, 2011 and, therefore, wish to avoid incurring any unnecessary costs

22

until they determine whether settlement may be achieved. Id. at 1-2.

23

The Court notes that the parties reported in their joint scheduling conference statement,

24

filed on December 1, 2010, that they were interested in discussing settlement and were

25

committed to attending mediation in May 2011. (Doc. 31 at 22) In the current stipulation, they

26

provide no explanation why they did not complete the mediation in May or why the settlement

27
1

1

efforts have been so extensively delayed.

2

Notably, in the scheduling order, the Court admonished the parties,

3

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified
absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by
stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be
considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and
where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting
the relief requested.

4
5
6
7

(Doc. 20 at 7.) Upon this backdrop, the Court will consider the parties’ request.

8

II.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13
14

. . . 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.

15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

requires the parties to demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will

20

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

21

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

22

Scheduling conference . . .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608, emphasis added. Because the parties

23

indisputably committed to pursue mediation 6 months ago, finally engaging in it is not an

24

“unanticipated” circumstance. Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608.

25
26

Moreover, the proposed dates provided in the stipulation would, by necessity, force a
change in the date for the pretrial conference and the trial. Nevertheless, the parties have failed

27
2

1

to provide any viable justification for this delay in the trial. Though the Court applauds the

2

parties’ desire to resolve this matter and enthusiastically encourages this pursuit, the Court

3

cannot tolerate such a disruption that the proposed amendments would impose on it.

4

On the other hand, the Court is mindful of the skyrocketing costs of litigation and the

5

devastating impacts it can have on the public fisc and encourages avoiding wasteful expenditure

6

of these resources. Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court will GRANT IN PART and

7

DENY IN PART the stipulation to amend the scheduling order. The scheduling order is

8

amended to include the following deadlines:

9

Joint expert disclosure:

July 25, 2011

10

Joint expert rebuttal disclosure:

August 15, 2011

11

Expert discovery deadline:

September 5, 2011

12

Non-dispositive motion filing deadline:

September 12, 2011

13

Non-dispositive motion hearing deadline:

October 10, 2011

14

No other deadlines are amended by this Order. The parties are advised that no further

15

modifications of the scheduling order will be permitted absent a showing of exceptional

16

good cause.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: June 17, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3