Aluya v. Management & Training Corporation

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING 48 Stipulation to Amend Case Schedule, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/27/2015. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH USUNUBU ALUYA,,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO
AMEND CASE SCHEDULE

v.

13
14

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01345 AWI-JLT

(Doc. 48)
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION, AND JOHN DOES 1 – 9,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Before the Court is a stipulation to amend the scheduling order that is focused on extending

18

time to complete expert discovery. (Doc. 48 at 2) In the stipulation, counsel report that, without

19

obtaining the Court’s authorization, they agreed to delay the disclosure of experts and rebuttal

20

experts one week each. Id. This occurred despite that the Court had previously authorized an

21

extension of time related to expert discovery. (Doc. 42)

22

Given their agreement to delay disclosure, the parties have insufficient time to complete

23

expert discovery by the deadline—today.1 (Doc. 48) Other than setting forth this situation,

24

counsel make no other showing that good cause exists to modify the case schedule.

25

Notably, courts are vested with the authority to “modify the timing of disclosures.” Fed. R.

26
27
28

1

Counsel had to have been aware when they agreed to delay the disclosures that they would have little time to
complete depositions once the disclosures occurred.

1

Civ. P. 16(d). Once entered by a court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless

2

the court modifies it.” Id. Scheduling orders are “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered,

3

which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

4

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D.

5

138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Moreover, good cause must be shown for modification of the

6

scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

7
8

Because counsel have failed to demonstrate good cause to justify amendment of the case
schedule, the stipulation is DENIED.2 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

11

March 27, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The request to modify the case schedule to allow dispositive motions to be filed on May 4, 2015 is MOOT. May 4,
2015 is the current deadline. (Doc. 48 at 2)