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)

Download PDF
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

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?