US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hospital Housekeeping Systems of Houston, Inc.
ORDER denying extension of dates signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 2/6/2013. Given the absence of necessary detail to support the parties' proposed dates, it is hereby ordered that the parties' request to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines is DENIED without prejudice. This Court will entertain a further stipulation which properly addresses the issues raised above and which delineates the dates for discovery deadlines, dispositive motions, pretrial conferences and the trial date. (Hernandez, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
Case No. 1:11-cv-01658-LJO-SAB
ORDER TO DENY EXTENSION OF DATES
SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
The parties have filed a stipulation seeking extension of discovery and dispositive motions
deadlines. The parties propose new deadlines for completing discovery (March 25, 2013), filing
dispositive motions (April 11, 2013) and hearing dispositive motions (May 28, 2013). This is the
parties’ second request for a stipulated extension. Their first stipulated extension request was
granted on November 1, 2012. (ECF No. 19.) While the stipulation mentions that the reason for
an extension is to discuss settlement, there are insufficient facts that demonstrate why they cannot
simultaneously conduct settlement discussions and conduct discovery while still meeting the
previously imposed deadlines.1 Further, the new stipulation does not take into account the
previously set pretrial conference date of May 21, 2013 and the set trial date of July 9, 2013.
The previously granted stipulation cited settlement discussions as one of the reasons for the extension of the
The district judge’s burdensome caseload of 1,300 cases prevents it from scheduling
matters at the parties’ request, especially after being given a prior extension. Scheduling orders
are vital to this Court’s case management. Scheduling orders “are the heart of case management,”
Koplve v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986), and are intended to alleviate case
management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.
1992). A “scheduling conference order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can
be cavalierly disregarded without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. The Court will not grant a
second extension in the absence of a detailed showing of good cause and an accounting for both
the pretrial conference date and actual trial. Absent consent before a United States Magistrate
Judge and due to the district judge’s caseload and trial schedule, the district judge is prepared to
proceed on July 9, 2013 with the trial.2
Given the absence of necessary detail to support the parties’ proposed dates, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request to extend the discovery and dispositive motion
deadlines is DENIED without prejudice. This Court will entertain a further stipulation which
properly addresses the issues raised above and which delineates the dates for discovery deadlines,
dispositive motions, pretrial conferences and the trial date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 6, 2013
/s/ Stanley A. Boone
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
However, because of constitutional considerations, criminal jury trials take priority over civil trials. If a criminal
trial were to conflict with the civil trial, the civil trial will trail until completion of the criminal trial.
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?