Golden v. Home Depot U.S.A, Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 41 Stipulation to Amend the Case Schedule, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/18/2019. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CLYDE GOLDEN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO
AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
(Doc. 41)

v.

15

Case No. 1:18-cv-00033-LJO-JLT

HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC.

16

Defendant.

17
18

Yesterday, counsel have filed a stipulation seeking to allow depositions to be taken beyond the

19

deadline, which was yesterday. (Doc. 41) In the stipulation, they have failed to demonstrate good cause

20

for the schedule amendment and, in fact, make no effort toward doing so. Rather, they state only that

21

scheduling depositions has been “difficult” without showing how long they have been attempting to

22

schedule the depositions or the nature of the difficulties.

23

Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court

24

modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be

25

modified only for good cause and only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In Johnson v.

26

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court explained,

27

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

28

1

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

2

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

3

amendment) . . .[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. .

4

. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Johnson, at 609.

5

Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of

6

the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer,

7

163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties to

8

demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her

9

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably

10

foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling conference . . .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at

11

608, emphasis added. The stipulation utterly fails to demonstrate good cause. Thus, the Court

12

ORDERS:

13

1.

The stipulation to amend the case schedule (Doc. 41) is DENIED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
Dated:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

June 18, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE