Allen v. California Highway Patrol
Filing
70
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/12/2017: GRANTING 59 Motion to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order; Motions in Limine are now due by 9/7/2017; oppositions are now due by 9/21/2017; Replies are now due by 9/28/2017; the Fin al Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED to 10/5/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England Jr; the Jury Trial is CONTINUED to 11/27/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Washington, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
LAURIE E. ALLEN, individually and as
successor in interest of KEITH W.
ALLEN, deceased,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
No. 2:13-cv-01821-MCE-EFB
ORDER
v.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et
al.,
Defendants.
17
This matter was set for trial on June 5, 2017. Defendants, however, filed a Motion
18
19
to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order, ECF No. 59, on March 27, 2017. In that Motion,
20
Defendants seek to continue the trial until September 11, 2017. Defendants also filed an
21
Ex Parte Application to shorten the time for hearing that Motion. ECF No. 60. That Ex
22
Parte Application was GRANTED, ECF No. 68, staying all pretrial dates pending
23
resolution of Defendants’ Motion. It also provided Plaintiff an opportunity to file an
24
opposition to the Motion, of which she has taken advantage. ECF No. 69. After
25
consideration of the Motion and Plaintiff’s Opposition, the Court finds good cause exists
26
to modify the pretrial scheduling order and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.
27
///
28
///
1
1
STANDARD
2
Generally, the Court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling order within 120
3
4
days of the filing of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The scheduling order "controls
5
the subsequent course of the action" unless modified by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P.
6
16(e). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a
7
showing of “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), but orders”following a final pretrial
8
conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e);
9
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
10
11
seeking the amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The district court may modify the
12
pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party
13
seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note to 1983
14
amendment. Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and
15
offers no reason for a grant of relief. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Although the existence
16
or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional
17
reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for
18
seeking modification. Id. (citing Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138,
19
141 (D. Me. 1985)). If the moving party was not diligent, the Court’s inquiry should end.
20
Id.
21
22
DISCUSSION
23
24
Defendants aver that this case was previously assigned to Kevin W. Reager, who
25
went on medical leave in January 2017. Meshot Decl., ECF No. 59-2, ¶ 3. He was
26
expected to return to work on February 6, 2017, and so the case continued to be
27
assigned to him. Id. However, in February 2017, his medical leave was extended to
28
March 6, 2017, and though the case continued to be assigned to him. Id. ¶ 4.
2
1
Sometime in mid-to-late March, Reager’s return became uncertain and the case was
2
assigned to two new attorneys, Vickie P. Whitney and Krista J. Dunzweiler. Defendants
3
aver that transferring the case to Whitney and Dunzweiler only in mid-to-late March
4
despite the extension of Reager’s leave was in good faith and due, in part, to staffing
5
shortages in the Tort and Condemnation Section of the Attorney General’s Office. Id.
6
The Court finds that Reager’s medical leave and uncertain return constitute good
7
cause for modifying the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Plaintiff only generally claims
8
prejudice would occur from continuing trial, stating that “[w]ith each continuance, Plaintiff
9
becomes more demoralized, and the possibility that witnesses may become unavailable
10
or that witnesses’ memories will fade increases.” Pl.’s Opp’n, at 2. While such concerns
11
are understandable, absent a more particularized demonstration of prejudice, the Court
12
is not persuaded that a continuance is inappropriate.
13
14
CONCLUSION
15
16
For the reasons provided, Defendants’ Motion to Modify Pretrial Scheduling
17
Order, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED. The trial is continued to November 27, 2017 at 9:00
18
a.m. Furthermore, the Final Pretrial Conference is continued to October 5, 2017 at 2:00
19
p.m. The parties’ Final Pretrial Conference Statement, Trial Briefs, and Motions in
20
Limine are due September 7, 2017. Any oppositions to the Motions in Limine are due
21
September 21, 2017, and any replies are due on September 28, 2017.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 12, 2017
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?