Green et al v. Bakersfield Memorial Hospital, et al.

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING 26 Ex Parte Request to Amend the Case Schedule, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/19/2017. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEONARD GREEN, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No.: 1:16-CV-00450-LJO-JLT

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE REQUEST TO
AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
(Doc. 26)

v.
BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et
al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On February 14, 2107, the Court denied the stipulation of counsel to amend the case schedule.

19

(Doc. 25) The basis for the order was the absolute lack of diligence shown toward completing even a

20

modicum of discovery within the deadlines set. Id. Now, a month after that order, the plaintiffs have

21

filed an ex parte request to amend the case schedule. (Doc. 24) In doing so, they blame their failure to

22

conduct discovery on the defendants. They assert that the defendants lead them to believe the case

23

would settle and it didn’t. They assert the defendants sought extensions on discovery response deadlines

24

and delayed beyond the extensions in responding. They assert that the defendants failed to provide dates

25

for depositions. What is strikingly absent from the ex parte request is any explanation why plaintiff

26

allowed any of these tactics.

27
28

Notably, they alone chose whether to grant extensions of time. They alone chose to forego
discovery on the chance the case would settle. They alone chose not to set depositions despite that they
1

1

need not obtain the approval of opposing counsel before doing so. And, most important, they alone

2

chose to forgo the assistance of the Court in obtaining compliance with discovery efforts (See Doc. 18 at

3

3).1 The Court has little sympathy for this lack of diligence toward the obligations of discovery and, as

4

set forth in its previous order denying the requested amendment to the case schedule, this conduct falls

5

well-short of that required to amend the case scheduled. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608

6

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

7

The Court does sympathize with the plaintiffs who, unfortunately, will bear the brunt of their

8

attorney’s decisions to allow them to not obtain the discovery they need. However, the Court is

9

obligated—as is their counsel—to the dictates of the law. Therefore, the ex parte request to amend the

10

case schedule is DENIED.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

13

March 19, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11

In making these observations, the Court DOES NOT CONDONE the defendants’ conduct if it was as described
in the plaintiffs’ papers. However, their conduct is not yet before the Court.
2