Nickles v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/2/2009 GRANTING Plaintiffs' (2:08CV1036 MCE KJM) Motion to Amend Pretrial Scheduling Order. Since the modification of the discovery dates in this case necessarily requires modification of all s cheduling dates, the Court will issue an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order in Redos and Nickles within 10 days of the date this Order is electronically filed. The hearing currently scheduled (2:08CV1036 MCE KJM) for 2:00 p.m. on 7/16/2009, is hereby VACATED. (Reader, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 ----oo0oo---17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order the cases of Redos v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:08-cv-01036-MCE-JKM, and Nickles v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:08-cv-01155-MCE-KJM. The Court previously JOHN F. REDOS, JR., Plaintiff, v. ORDER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, No. 2:08-cv-01036-MCE-KJM Related to: No. 2:08-cv-01155-MCE-KJM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ordered these cases consolidated for discovery purposes only with Gomez v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:09-cv-00225-MCE-KJM. Plaintiffs Redos and Nickles now contend that the discovery deadlines set in the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order ("PTSO") should be extended so that they are in keeping with those set in the Gomez case. /// 1 This Court agrees.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Generally, the Court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling order within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The scheduling order "controls the

subsequent course of the action" unless modified by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Orders entered before the final pretrial

conference may be modified upon a showing of "good cause," Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), but orders "following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Id. at 609. "The

district court may modify the pretrial schedule `if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Id., quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory "Moreover, carelessness is

committee's notes (1983 amendment).

not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief." Id. "Although the existence or degree

of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end." /// /// /// /// /// /// 2 Id. If

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Good cause having been shown, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the PTSO (Docket NO. 21) is GRANTED. Since the modification of

the discovery dates in this case necessarily requires modification of all scheduling dates, the Court will issue an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order in Redos and Nickles within ten (10) days of the date this Order is electronically filed. The

hearing currently scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on July 16, 2009, is hereby vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 2, 2009

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3