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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?