Walker v. McCloud Community Services District

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/16/2017 DENYING 17 Defendant's Ex Parte Application to Modify the Scheduling Order. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

JEROME WALKER,

15
16

2:16-61 WBS CMK

Plaintiff,

13
14

Civ. No.

v.

ORDER RE: EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
MODIFYING THE SCHEDULING
ORDER

MCCLOUD COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

----oo0oo---Before the court is defendant’s ex parte application
for an order modifying the court’s scheduling order to extend the
discovery and law and motion deadlines and reset the trial date.
(Docket No. 17.)

The application is opposed by plaintiff.

(Docket No. 18.)

Having reviewed defendant’s application, the

court finds that defendant has not shown good cause to modify the
scheduling order.

Even assuming the parties had informally

agreed to modify the scheduling order, the parties never agreed
on any new proposed deadlines, and such agreement was not brought

28
1

1

to the court’s attention until now, on the eve of the Pretrial

2

Conference, which was set almost ten months ago.

3

application was filed well after the discovery and dispositive

4

motion deadlines had past.

5

is DENIED.

6
7

Accordingly, the ex parte application

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Moreover, the

February 16, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2