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)

Download PDF
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?