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)

Download PDF
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

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?