Lopez et al v. County of Kern et al

Filing 30

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING 28 Stipulation to Amend Case Schedule, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/19/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANAMARIA GONZALEZ LOPEZ, et al.
Plaintiffs,

12
v.

13
14

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-0864 AWI JLT
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION
TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
(Doc. 22)

The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule once again.1 (Doc. 28) The need for

17
18

the amendment is not clear. Counsel indicate they intend to schedule several depositions to occur

19

sometime within the next few weeks. Id. at 3. Likewise, the plaintiffs would like to amend their

20

complaint to add at least one additional defendant. Id. Counsel seek additional time to file amended

21

pleadings and to complete non-expert discovery.
Though counsel assert that they have acted diligently to discover this case, there is little

22
23

evidence of this in the stipulation. Except for a couple of depositions, it does not appear that much

24

discovery has occurred since December. (Compare Doc. 22 and Doc. 26). Though counsel

25

anticipate taking additional depositions, the stipulation fails to demonstrate why the remaining

26
27
28
1

The Court has twice before amended the case scheduled based upon the stipulation of counsel (Docs. 23, 27)

1

1

depositions cannot be completed within the current deadline—more than 60 days hence. 2 However,

2

because this amendment will not impact the remaining case dates, the Court GRANTS the

3

stipulation as follows:

4

1.

All non-expert discovery SHALL be completed by July 30, 2018;

5

2.

Any motions to amend or stipulations to amend SHALL be filed, if at all, by June 1,

6
7
8

2018.
Counsel should not file any future stipulations to amend the case schedule that fail to
demonstrate extraordinary good cause; they will be summarily denied.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 19, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Counsel report that scheduling has been difficult because plaintiffs’ counsel is located in Pasadena; why this
location poses a difficulty is unclear. Plaintiffs’ counsel had to have known at the time they took on this case that the
case’s venue would require travel. If the need for travel wasn’t a concern then, it cannot be one now.

2