Greer v. Lowe's HIW, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING IN PART Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order 20 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/2/2013. Settlement Conference CONTINUED to 11/14/2013 at 09:30 AM at the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street (JLT), Bakersfield, before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANNA GREER,

12

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01096-LJO-JLT
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
STIPULATION TO AMEND THE
SCHEDULING ORDER

13

v.

14

LOWE’S HIW, INC. and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive,

(Doc. 20)

15
Defendant.
16
17

Before the Court is the stipulation of the parties to amend the scheduling order. (Doc. 20)

18

The parties assert the amendment is necessary to allow the neurosurgical and neuropsychological

19

examination of Plaintiff. Id. at 3. Notably, the parties, though concluding they have acted

20

diligently in pursuing discovery, fail to set forth why three independent medical examinations are

21

necessary or why these examinations have not occurred before now. Moreover, they fail to provide

22

explanation why months are needed to evaluate the results of these examinations or to compare

23

them to the demand made by Plaintiff.

1

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

24
25
1

26
27
28

By referring to the dates provided for the pretrial and trial, the parties seem to imply that there is
an excess amount of time in the schedule. To the contrary, based upon the workload of Judge
O’Neill and the crushing caseload he carries, the amount of time built into the case schedule is
necessary for the Court to have sufficient time to address motions and to ensure the case proceeds
in an orderly fashion. Indeed, in the current case schedule there is virtually no excess time.

30
31

1

1
2
3
4
5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

parties to demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur,

11

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

12

not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling conference .

13

. .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608, emphasis added.

14
15
16
17
18

The scheduling order advised the parties that a stipulation to amend the scheduling order,
unsupported by good cause, would not be sufficient. (Doc. 10 at 8) The order reads,
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.

19

(Id., emphasis in the original) Nevertheless, based upon their stipulation, the parties seek a

20

continuance of the settlement conference and the dates by which experts must be disclosed and

21

expert discovery must be completed without any real showing why the disclosure cannot occur on

22

schedule. Notably, they report the next IME will occur in early August and fail to explain why the

23

final one cannot occur within weeks—or even a month—of the second exam.

24

Moreover, the dates proposed in the stipulation exclude the possibility of filing motions related

25

to expert discovery and would require dispositive motions be filed and opposed before any expert

26

discovery occurred and without any showing counsel have contemplated the impact this could have

27

on this litigation or the resulting prejudice to their clients.

28
30
31

2

1
2
3
4
5

Though the Court does not suggest the IMEs should not occur but, without a showing that the
examinations cannot be completed in sufficient time to meet the current October 16, 2013
disclosure date, the Court does not find good cause exists to modify the scheduling order.
Moreover, despite seeking an extension of time to complete non-expert discovery, there is no
showing at all that good cause exists for this requested modification.

6
7
8

ORDER
1.

The settlement conference is continued to November 14, 2013 at 9:30 a.m;

2.

Based upon a lack of good cause, the stipulation to amend the scheduling order is

9

DENIED.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 2, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31

3