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)
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?