Long et al v. Home Depot, USA, Inc. et al

Filing 38

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 35 Ex Parte Application to Modify the Case Scheduling Order; ORDER to PLAINTIFFS and THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Their Failure to Comply with a Court Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/15/2016. All non-expert discovery shall be completed by 8/12/2016; Plaintiff's Show Cause Response due within 7 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4

WILLIAM A. JENKINS (SBN 137611)
ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 110 South
Sacramento, CA 95825
[phone]
[phone] Facsimile

5

Attorneys for Defendant Clopay Building Products Company, Inc.
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ESTHER S. LONG and RONALD LONG,

12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15
16
17
18

THE HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC.; CLOPAY
BUILDING PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.;
CLOPAY; CLOPAY GARAGE DOORS and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Case No. 1:14-cv-01737-DAD-JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE CASE
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 35)
ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR
COUNSEL OF RECORD TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

Defendant

19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

Clopay reports that at some point after the Court issued the case schedule, Ms. Long reported
additional injuries she claims resulted from the incident that gave rise to the complaint. (Doc. 36 at 2)
Clopay does not report what efforts it undertook to discover these new injuries once it learned of them
and reports only that discovery efforts have been “difficult” because Ms. Long has not been
forthcoming. Id.
Defendant fails to set forth what discovery it needs to conduct—other than subpoenaing
documents and possibly seeking an IME—or why it believes it needs four extra months of discovery

1

time to conduct this discovery.1 (Doc. 36 at 2)
Because Clopay has failed to demonstrate good cause to amend the case schedule, the Court will

2
3

permit only a very limited extension of discovery time.
On the other hand, on June 7, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a response to the request

4
5

for the amendment to the case schedule within five days. (Doc. 37) Plaintiffs and their counsel

6

completely ignored the Court’s order and have not responded in any fashion. Thus, the Court

7

ORDERS:
1.

8
9

The request to modify the case schedule (Doc. 35) is GRANTED IN PART. All non-

expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than August 12, 2016;
2.

10

Within 7 days, Plaintiffs and their counsel, John Bell, SHALL show cause in writing

11

why sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, should not be imposed for their failure to

12

comply with the Court’s order.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

June 15, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The Court is aware that counsel has very recently taken over defense of this case. However, this is not grounds for a
modification of the case schedule. Defendant should have considered the minimal discovery time when decided to change
counsel so late in this case.