Hilda L Solis v. Timothy John Hardt et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING 50 Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order, Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/3/2012. (Arellano, S.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HILDA SOLIS, 12 13 14 15 Case No.: 1:10-cv-02283 AWI JLT ORDER DENYING STIPULTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiff, vs. (Doc. 50) TIMOTHY JOHN HARDT, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Before the Court is the stipulation of Plaintiff and Defendant John Hardt. (Doc. 50) In 19 the stipulation, the parties report they are continuing to have settlement discussions and would 20 like to delay the deposition of Timothy Hardt until after these discussions are concluded. Id. at 2. 21 The parties ask for an extension of time to August 13, 2012 to conduct the deposition, if it 22 becomes necessary. Id. 23 Notably, the parties have been having settlement discussions for months. This Court held 24 a settlement conference on February 16, 2012. (Doc. 43) At that time, Mr. Hardt agreed to 25 complete a financial affidavit to allow further settlement discussions. Id. On April 18, 2012, the 26 Court held the mid-discovery status conference. (Doc. 45) Despite the passage of two months 27 since the settlement conference, the parties still had not achieved settlement. Id. At the hearing, 28 1 1 on April 18, 2012, the Court cautioned counsel that ongoing settlement discussions, would not 2 constitute good cause to extend the discovery deadlines. Id. The Court strongly urged the parties 3 to complete their discovery tasks expeditiously. Despite this, the parties offer no justification for 4 their requested schedule amendment. 5 According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good 6 cause and only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court explained, . . . 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. 8 9 10 11 12 Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of 13 the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. 14 Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the 15 parties to demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, 16 notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which 17 could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling 18 conference . . .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608, emphasis added. 19 Here, there are no new circumstances and no showing of diligence whatsoever. The 20 parties were not surprised by conditions that made completing discovery in a timely fashion 21 impossible. Instead, they decided to proceed, ploddingly, toward a determination of whether they 22 will settle without, seemingly, making any progress. In doing so, they decided affirmatively to 23 forego discovery efforts despite admonishment by the Court. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 Therefore, because good cause has not been shown for the requested amendment to the case schedule, the stipulation is DENIED. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6 July 3, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 DEAC_Signature-END: 9j7khijed 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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?