Walker, et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 24

ORDER GRANTING 23 Stipulation to Amend the Case Schedule, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/15/2017. Non-expert discovery completed by 5/30/2017; Expert discovery completed by 7/31/2017. Settlement Conference CONTINUED to 8/3/2017 at 01:30 PM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) 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

ELIZABETH AGNES WALKER, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,
v.

13
14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01597 DAD JLT
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND
THE CASE SCHEDULE
(Doc. 23)

16
17

Counsel have filed a stipulation to amend the case schedule to extend the deadlines by which

18

non-expert and expert discovery will occur. (Doc. 23) They report various schedule conflicts of

19

counsel—which fail to demonstrate good cause to amend the case schedule, because these

20

circumstances were not unanticipated at the time the case schedule was developed and is a normal

21

consequence of the practice of law1. They report also that the plaintiff is approaching the due date for

22

delivery of her child which makes her unavailable to complete her deposition. Moreover, she will need

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Likewise, the fact that Mr. Walker must miss time from work to prepare for his deposition and to complete his
deposition is not good cause to amend the case schedule. Indeed, this circumstance will exist regardless of whether the
plaintiffs submit to deposition now or at some continued date in the future. Moreover, they had to have known at the
time they initiated this litigation that there would be inconvenience imposed as a result. Also, the Court finds it absurd
that counsel thinks it is necessary to take a full day each to “prepare” Mr. and Mrs. Walker to complete the remaining
three hours of their depositions. Finally, if the location where they live poses such a difficulty for them to meet with
counsel, seemingly, counsel could drive to meet them at their location.

1

1

time to recuperate from the delivery before she will be in a position to submit to her deposition. The

2

Court finds this constitutes good cause to extend the case deadlines.2 Therefore, the Court ORDERS:
1.

3

a.

4
5

b.

The parties SHALL disclose experts no later than May 30, 2017 and rebuttal

experts no later than June 26, 2017.
c.

8
9

all non-expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than May 30, 2017 and

all expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than July 31, 2017;

6
7

The case schedule is amended as follows:

The settlement conference is continued to August 3, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

Absolutely no other amendments to the case schedule are authorized despite that this current

10

amendment means that counsel must file dispositive motions before completing expert discovery

11

and despite that the non-dispositive motion deadline will pass before completion of non-expert

12

and expert discovery. This current amendment—made at the request of counsel after,

13

presumably, they decided impacts of the remainder on the schedule were not problematic—will

14

not be accepted as good cause to amend any other portion of the case schedule.
The Court does not contemplate authorizing any further amendments to the case schedule so

15
16

counsel are strongly advised to immediately devote their attention to completing discovery in this case.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated:

February 15, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court observes that counsel fail to explain why they failed for eight months to complete Mrs. Walker’s deposition
despite her approaching delivery date.

2