Robert Medrano et al v. Richard Hamlin, et al
Filing
35
ORDER DENYING 34 request for schedule modification without prejudice and with leave to renew the stipulated request within 60 days, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/26/2011. (Timken, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERTO MEDRANO and ALBERTO
LANDA,
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01555-LJO-SKO
12
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
SCHEDULE MODIFICATION
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
16
(Docket No. 34)
GENCO SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS
aka GENCO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
/
19
20
I.
INTRODUCTION
21
On September 14, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated request to modify the schedule. (Doc.
22
34.) The parties request that the non-expert discovery deadline, currently set for February 7, 2012,
23
be extended until May 8, 2012; the expert discovery deadline, currently set for April 6, 2012, be
24
extended until July 6, 2012; and the settlement conference, currently scheduled for February 7, 2012,
25
be extended until May 8, 2012.
26
27
28
1
II.
DISCUSSION
2
The parties’ proposed modification to the schedule and the existing deadlines are as follows:
3
Deadline/Date
Current Schedule
Proposed Schedule
4
1.
Non-Expert Disc.
February 7, 2012
May 8, 2012
5
2.
Expert Disclosure
February 7, 2012
No date proposed
6
3.
Settlement Conference
February 7, 2012
May 8, 2012
7
4.
Rebuttal Expert Discl.
February 29, 2012
No date proposed
8
5.
Expert Discovery
April 6, 2012
July 6, 2012
9
6.
Non-Disp. Filing
April 11, 2012
No date proposed
10
7.
Non-Disp. Hearing
May 9, 2012
No date proposed
11
8.
Dispositive Filing
May 15, 2012
No date proposed
12
9.
Dispositive Hearing
June 26, 2012
No date proposed
13
10.
Pre-Trial Conf.
August 7, 2012
No date proposed
14
11.
Trial
September 17, 2012
No date proposed
15
As good cause for a three-month extension of the discovery deadlines, the parties explain that
16
a death of a family member of one plaintiff as well as an ongoing injury to one of the plaintiff’s
17
attorneys have resulted in the inability to schedule any depositions to date. The parties also note that
18
“lead counsel for Defendant has a trial in another matter that will cause him to be unavailable for
19
nearly the entire month of October to take or defend any depositions.” (Doc. 34., 2:12-13.)
20
While the Court notes the parties’ diligence in seeking a modification to the schedule well
21
in advance of their deadlines, the proposed modification necessarily impacts other deadlines in the
22
current schedule, such as the dates for filing and hearing non-dispositive motions, dispositive
23
motions, the pre-trial conference, and the trial dates. For example, the non-dispositive motion filing
24
deadline is April 11, 2012, and the dispositive motion filing deadline is May 15, 2012. If the expert
25
discovery deadline extends until July 6, 2012, the parties may be unable to complete their discovery
26
prior to filing any dispositive motions, and effectively eliminate the ability to conduct any motion
27
practice with regard to discovery taken after the filing deadline for non-dispositive motions.
28
///
2
1
Additionally, if the motion filing deadlines are extended to allow for the completion of
2
discovery under the proposed schedule, the pre-trial conference and the trial dates become untenable.
3
Perhaps the parties do not anticipate filing any dispositive motions and foresee no need for any non-
4
dispositive motions related to discovery. As these issues are not addressed in the parties’ stipulated
5
request for a modification, however, the Court is reluctant to implement a schedule that appears
6
problematic in the long-term.1
7
Further, a wholesale modification to the schedule appears somewhat premature in that,
8
despite difficulties taking depositions thus far, there are three months remaining to complete
9
discovery even if October is excluded due to the unavailability of Defendant’s lead
10
counsel. Nonetheless, the Court is willing to entertain a schedule modification.
11
The parties may resubmit their request for a modification in 60 days, setting forth good cause
12
to extend the deadlines. In a renewed request for a schedule modification, the parties should
13
consider how any proposed modification impacts all of the deadlines in the case, and, if necessary,
14
propose modified dates for the hearing and filing of motions, the pre-trial conference, and the trial.
15
16
III.
CONCLUSION
17
For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the parties’ stipulated
18
request for a schedule modification is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew the
19
stipulated request within 60 days.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated:
ie14hj
September 26, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
1
Moreover, because the district judges in this division are experiencing severely impacted trial calendars with
over 1,800 cases per judge, adjustments to the trial schedule may further complicate and hamper the parties’ ability to
have their case heard. The parties have the ability to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to the extent that
counsel and their clients desire greater scheduling flexibility and certainty with regard to trial dates that the district judges
are currently less able to accommodate.
28
3
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?