Anderson v. Riverwalk Holdings, LTD et al

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING 37 Stipulation to Amend Case Schedule, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/14/2017. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FREDERICK C. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD., et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00251 - LJO - JLT
ORDER DENYING STIPUATION TO AMEND
CASE SCHEDULE
(Doc. 37)

16
17

The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule to extend case deadlines by about 45

18

days. (Doc. 37) They offer little justification for the amendment stating only that they have had

19

difficulty recently in selecting dates for “critical” depositions due to counsel’s travel schedule and other

20

commitments. Id. at 2. They do not explain why these critical depositions were not taken in the nine

21

preceding months and, though they conclude they have been diligent in completing discovery, they

22

provide no facts to support this conclusion. Id.

23

Notably, in November 28, 2016, the Court reminded counsel “of their obligation to complete all

24

discovery within the time frames set forth in the Scheduling Order.” (Doc. 33) Nevertheless,

25

apparently, this failed to spur counsel on to complete discovery as ordered.

26
27

In the scheduling order, the Court provided information as to what was required when seeking to
amend the case schedule. Indeed, in the scheduling order, the Court admonished,

28
1

1
2
3
4
5

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.
(Doc. 21 at 6, emphasis in the original)
Good cause is shown by demonstrating the parties acted diligently to meet the deadlines in

6

place. “. . . Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of the party seeking the

7

amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite

8

the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983

9

amendment). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties demonstrate that “noncompliance

10

with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply, because

11

of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time

12

of the Rule 16 Scheduling conference . . .” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal.

13

1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995).

14

Here, the parties offer little explanation for their failure to have progressed in discovery. The

15

Court is aware that the defendants delayed significantly in beginning discovery and that plaintiff

16

allowed the defendants to fail to timely respond to discovery requests. (Doc. 32) Because counsel have

17

provided no other explanation for their failure to complete discovery before now, the Court must

18

conclude that it is due to these factors. Due to the failure to demonstrate good cause, the stipulation to

19

amend the case schedule is DENIED.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 14, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2