Stein v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.,

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/20/2012 DENYING 57 Motion to Extend the discovery completion.(Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MARIA CHRISTINA STEIN, aka MARY
STEIN,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor
in interest to Countrywide Bank,
FSB; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. aka
“MERS”,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-02827-GEB-EFB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND REOPEN DISCOVERY AFTER
DISCOVERY COMPLETION DATE HAS
PASSED*

18
Plaintiff filed a motion on November 16, 2012, in which she

19
20

requests “1)

this

21

Discovery propounded; and 2) to extend the Discovery time period to

22

allow same.” (Pl.’s Mot. 6:14-15.) In essence, Plaintiff argues the

23

requested relief should be granted because she and Defendants “agreed to

24

concentrate on settling this matter[,]” but were unsuccessful, and

25

Defendants

26

Plaintiff propounded after the discovery completion date. (Pl.’s Mot.

are

now

Court

to

refusing

compel

to

Defendants to

respond

answer

to written

[written]

discovery that

27
28

*

argument.

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1

3:9-12, 4:6-10; Decl. of Richard Sinclair in Supp. of Mot. ¶¶ 3-4.)

2

Plaintiff further argues that “Plaintiff’s counsel thought [the] parties

3

were putting discovery on hold to try to settle the matter[, but]

4

Defendant[s] obviously thought differently . . . .” Id. at 4:6-9.

5

Plaintiff’s request to “compel Defendants to answer [the

6

propounded written] Discovery” is DENIED, since the January 25, 2012

7

Minute Order (ECF No. 49) required all discovery to be completed by July

8

24, 2012. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608

9

(9th Cir. 1992)(indicating motions filed after the deadlines set in a

10

scheduling order are untimely and may be denied solely on that ground).

11

The May 19, 2011 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order notified the parties

12

that in this context, “‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have

13

been conducted so . . . any disputes relative to discovery shall have

14

been resolved by appropriate orders, if necessary . . . .” (ECF No. 37,

15

2:7-13.)

16

Further, Plaintiff has not shown “good cause” to extend the

17

discovery completion date. “A schedul[ing order] may be modified only

18

for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

19

“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of

20

the party seeking the amendment. . . . Moreover, carelessness is not

21

compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant

22

of relief . . . . If [the movant] was not diligent, the inquiry should

23

end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Assuming arguendo that the parties

24

agreed to “put[] discovery on hold to try to settle the matter[,]” such

25

an agreement is ineffective without the Court’s approval. Fed. R. Civ.

26

P. 29(b)(“a stipulation extending the time for any form of discovery

27

must have court approval if it would interfere with the time set for

28
2

1

completing discovery”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to extend the

2

discovery completion date is DENIED.

3

Dated:

November 20, 2012

4
5
6

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

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