Z.F., et al v. Ripon Unified School District, et al

Filing 238

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/9/2014 plaintiffs' 230 Motion to Amend 205 Pretrial Scheduling Order. The Expert Disclosure deadline is EXTENDED 30 days from date of Order approving the Settlement. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 Z.F., a minor, by and through his parents M.A.F. and J.F. and M.A.F. and J.F. individually; L.H. and J.H., minors, by and through their parents J.A. and J.R.H and J.A. and J.R.H. individually; A.N., a minor, by and through his parents, G.N. and M.R., and G.N. and M.R. individually, 12 No. 2:10-CV-00523 TLN-CKD ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated 13 14 v. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RIPON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, (RUSD); RIPON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES; SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION; VALLEY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL CENTER (VMRC), MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS, MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, RICHARD JACOBS, Executive Director of VMRC, in his official and individual capacity, TARA SISEMORE-HESTER, Coordinator for Autism Services for VMRC, in her official and individual capacity; VIRGINIA JOHNSON, Director of Modesto City Schools SELPA, in her official and individual capacity; SUE SWARTZLANDER, Program Director for Modesto City Schools, in her official and individual capacity and Does 1-200. Defendants. 27 28 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadline. (ECF No. 230.) Plaintiffs seek to extend the expert disclosure deadline in order to use $20,000 from the settlement proceeds to retain expert witnesses as requested in Plaintiffs L.H. and J.H.’s Motion to Approve Settlement via a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment of Minors’ Claims Against Modesto City Schools. (ECF No. 213.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) permits modification of the Scheduling Order for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992). Given that the Plaintiffs are relying on this $20,000 from the settlement to retain expert witnesses and that the Plaintiffs’ motion was still pending before the Court as the expert disclosure deadline approached, the Court deems that Plaintiffs could not reasonably meet the pretrial schedule despite due diligence. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did also attempt to obtain other financial resources to retain experts but were unable to do so. The Court finds that Plaintiffs showed good cause to modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order. The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order and extends the expert disclosure deadline to 30 days from the date of the order approving the settlement. 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2014 22 23 24 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 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?