Yith et al v. Johnson et al

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING Ex Parte Application to Continue Scheduling Conference. The Scheduling Conference currently set for 3/3/2015, is CONTINUED to 4/16/2015, at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/24/2015. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SEANLUM YITH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
v.

11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-01875-LJO-SKO
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
(Doc. 20)

JEH JOHNSON, United States Department of
Homeland Security, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17

On February 2, 2014, Defendants filed an ex parte motion to extend the time in which to

18 respond to the complaint by 45 days, which was denied. (Doc. 14, 18.) On February 13, 2015,
19 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in part. (Doc. 19.) Defendants also filed an
20 application to continue the March 3, 2015, scheduling conference. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiffs oppose
21 Defendants' request to continue the scheduling conference.
22

The Court generally continues scheduling conferences until all pre-answer motions or

23 motions to remand have been ruled upon and, if relevant, until all defendants' answers have been
24 filed.

This assists with helping to avoid disputes over the scope of initial disclosures at a time

25 when it is unknown what claims, if any, will survive a dispositive motion or what affirmative
26 defenses or counterclaims will be made if and when an answer filed. Continuing the scheduling
27 conference until all pleadings have been filed also reduces the need for repeated meet and confer
28 efforts related to various claims that may or may not survive a dispositive motion. Finally,

1 preparing a discovery plan before the pleadings are filed does not allow the parties to adequately
2 consider the entire universe of claims, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. The discovery
3 plan the parties are required to prepare pursuant to Rule 26(f) cannot be prepared with any degree
4 of accuracy in the face of an outstanding Rule 12 motion and in the absence of an answer by
5 Defendants.
6

The delay caused by the motion to dismiss will be relatively brief, and there is no basis

7 under Rule 26 or Rule 16 to conduct the scheduling conference at a time when the parties will be
8 unable to effectively complete the discovery proposal mandated by Rule 26(f).
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

11
12

Defendants' ex parte application to continue the Scheduling Conference set for
March 3, 2015, is GRANTED;

2.

13

The Scheduling Conference is CONTINUED to April 16, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in
Courtroom 7.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 24, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2