Solesbee v. County of Inyo et al

Filing 67

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 66 the Request to Modify the Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/14/2016. Non-Expert Discovery Deadline extended to 4/25/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY, ESQ. (SBN: 168228)
McCOY LAW FIRM
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Tanya Solesbee

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TANYA SOLESBEE, an individual,

12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.

14
15
16
17
18
19

COUNTY OF INYO, a governmental entity,
INYO COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE
MANAGEMENT, a government entity,
ROBERT MAYHUGH, an individual, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive;

Case No. 1:13-cv-01548-AWI-JLT
JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE
SCHEDULING ORDER FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE
DISCOVERY ; DECLARATION OF
WAUKEEN MCCOY IN SUPPORT
THEREOF; [PROPOSED]
ORDER GRANTING THE REQUEST IN
PART

Defendants.
(Doc. 63)

20
21
22

JOINT STIPULATION
Plaintiff TANYA SOLESBEE and Defendants, COUNTY OF INYO and ROBERT

23

MAYHUGH, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate that the

24

deadlines in the May 13, 2015 Scheduling Order be extended to allow the parties to adequately

25

complete the discovery needed to present all the issues to the Court.

26
27

WHEREAS, the operative complaint in this action was filed on August 25, 2014 in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of California, by Plaintiff;

28

1
JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLETE DISCOVERY; MCCOY DECLARATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

WHEREAS, on May 13, 2015, the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston issued a Scheduling

2

Order setting forth the discovery deadlines, non-dispositive motion deadlines, and dispositive

3

motion deadlines;

4

WHEREAS, the Scheduling Order required non-expert discovery to be completed by

5

February 15, 2016; expert discovery to be completed by April 25, 2016; non-dispositive motions

6

to be filed by May 9, 2016 and a hearing by June 6, 2016; and dispositive motions to be filed by

7

June 20, 2016 and a hearing by August 1, 2016;

8
9
10
11
12
13

WHEREAS the parties have engaged in written discovery, but meet and confer efforts to
resolve discovery disputes have delayed production of responsive documents and the taking of
depositions;
WHEREAS, the parties are engaging in a good faith settlement effort, but need further
discovery in order to engage in meaningful settlement discussion;
WHEREAS, the parties have been meeting and conferring on an appropriate protective order

14

to allow a full production of documents, which is necessary for Plaintiff to conduct the

15

depositions of the Defendants;

16

WHEREAS, the parties believe they require a limited extension of time to complete

17

discovery and file motions, without affecting the pretrial conference or trial dates established by

18

the Court;

19
20
21

WHEREAS, the parties have not made any previous requests to extend any discovery
deadlines in this action:
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff and

22

Defendants, through their respective counsel, that the deadlines in the May 13, 2015 Scheduling

23

Order be extended as follows:

24
25
26
27

1. The Non-Expert Discovery Deadline, which is currently set for February 15, 2016, shall
be extended to April 30, 2016.
2. The Expert Discovery Deadline, which is currently set for April 25, 2016, shall be
extended to June 9, 2016.

28

2
JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLETE DISCOVERY; MCCOY DECLARATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

3. The deadline for parties to file any non-dispositive pre-trial motions shall be extended

2

from May 9, 2016 to June 23, 2016, and the deadline for non-dispositive pre-trial

3

motions to be heard shall be extended from June 6, 2016 to July 21, 2016.

4

4. The deadline for parties to file any dispositive pre-trial motions shall be extended from

5

June 20, 2016 to August 4, 2016, and the deadline for dispositive pre-trial motions to be

6

heard shall be extended from August 1, 2016 to September 15, 2016.

7
8

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

9
10
11
12
13

By: ______/s/_________________________
Waukeen Q. McCoy, Esq.,
Attorney for Plaintiff, Tanya Solesbee

14
15

By: ______/s/_________________________
John Kirby, Esq.,
Attorney for Defendant County of Inyo
Dated: January 11, 2016

Dated: January 11, 2016

16
17

19

By: ______/s/ Charles Taylor___
Charles Taylor, Esq.,
Attorney for Defendant, Robert Mayhugh

20

Dated: January 11, 2016

18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLETE DISCOVERY; MCCOY DECLARATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

ORDER

2

Before the Court is the stipulation of counsel to extend the deadlines set forth in the

3

scheduling order. (Doc. 66) The stipulation fails to set forth the reasons why they have not

4

completed written discovery and indicates only that counsel have engaged in meet-and-confer

5

efforts related to a discovery dispute. Id. at 2. They state further that this dispute has delayed

6

them in taking depositions. Id. They say also that a dispute over drafting a protective order has

7

also arisen and they are working on this.1 Id.

8

They do not explain why they waited until so late in the process to complete their

9

discovery. As of November 2015, when they filed the mid-discovery status conference, it was

10

apparent that counsel had made only a modest effort toward completing discovery. (Doc. 63 at

11

2) Though Plaintiff had propounded written discovery, responses were due in early November,

12

suggesting that the discovery had not been propounded until late September or early October.

13

County had propounded written discovery and had received responses. Id. Mayhugh had

14

propounded no written discovery. Id. Despite this, no party suggested that they could not

15

comply with the February 15, 2016 discovery deadline. Id. (As an aside, the Court notes that the

16

February deadline was one they proposed at the time the Court developed the case schedule.

17

(Doc. 54 at 6)) As a result, the Court admonished, “Counsel are reminded of their obligation to

18

complete all discovery within the time frames set forth in the Scheduling Order.” (Doc. 64)

19

Stipulations to amend the case schedule must demonstrate good cause and a

20

determination whether this has been shown is informed by the diligence of the parties in

21

conducting this discovery; unfortunately, this latter information has not been detailed in the

22

stipulation. The case schedule informed counsel,

23

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.

24
25
26
27
28

1

They say also that they are having settlement discussions also. However, settlement discussions often are part of
litigation and should have been anticipated and taken into account proposing dates for the scheduling order. This
does not constitute good cause to amend the case schedule.
4
JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLETE DISCOVERY; MCCOY DECLARATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.
(Doc. 57 at 8, emphasis in the original)
Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v.

4

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). As such, a scheduling order is

5

“the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986).

6

Further, scheduling orders are “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be

7

cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (quoting Gestetner

8

Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). The parties must “diligently

9

attempt to adhere to the schedule throughout the course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate,

10

Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999).

11

Finally, the parties suggests significant changes to the case schedule while ignoring that

12

the proposed amendments fail to provide Judge Ishii sufficient time to consider and decide any

13

dispositive motions before the pretrial conference. As it stands the proposed hearing date for

14

dispositive motions is a mere four days before the pretrial conference; this is insufficient. Judge

15

Ishii needs eight weeks between the hearing on the motion and the pretrial conference. Thus, the

16

proposed amended schedule is unworkable for the Court and cannot be granted. However, the

17

Court will provide some assistance because there is a very minimal showing of good cause,

18

though no showing of diligence. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

19

1. The Non-Expert Discovery Deadline is extended to April 25, 2016.

20

Absolutely no other amendments to the case schedule are authorized. Absolutely no

21

further stipulations or motions to amend the case schedule will be entertained absent a

22

showing of exceptional good cause and a showing of diligence.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 14, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

5
JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLETE DISCOVERY; MCCOY DECLARATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER