Cobb et al v. Brede et al

Filing 125

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME re 124 Request filed by Jonathan D. Cobb, Sr., Walter Arlen St. Clair. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 11/9/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

Northern District of California

8
9

JONATHAN D. COBB, SR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
v.

No. C 10-03907 MEJ
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES

11
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ERNEST BREDE, et al.,
12
13

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

14
15

On November 7, 2011, over one month after the close of discovery in this matter, Plaintiffs

16

Jonathan Cobb and W. Arlen St. Clair filed a Request to Extend Discovery and Deposition

17

Deadlines. Dkt. No. 124. In their request, Plaintiffs state that they served a subpoena on Bill

18

Douglas’ father the week of October 9, 2011. As the subpoena was not served prior to the discovery

19

cut-off, and no request was made to extend the deadline to serve the subpoena prior to the cut-off

20

date, Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED.

21

Plaintiffs also request an extension of time to obtain responses to subpoenas. “The district

22

court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.” Zivkovic v. Southern

23

California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth

24

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). The Court may modify the discovery deadline

25

only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. “Generally, in

26

determining whether there is good cause to permit an extension the court will primarily look to the

27

(1) diligence of the party seeking the extension, but may also consider (2) the explanation for the

28

failure to complete discovery in a timely fashion; and (3) potential prejudice in allowing the

1

extension.” Missing Link, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., No. C–07–04487 RMW, 2010 WL 34268, at *2 (N.D.

2

Cal. Jan. 6, 2010). Here, discovery closed over one month ago, yet Plaintiffs provide no explanation

3

for their belated request. Further, the Court has held multiple discovery conferences in this case and

4

given the parties ample time to complete discovery, including a 30-day extension of the original

5

discovery deadline. Dkt. Nos. 32, 52, 58, 59, 66, 77, 96. Moreover, Defendants have a pending

6

summary judgment motion, and extension will thereby prejudice Defendants.

7

If Plaintiffs believed that additional time would be required for the subpoenas, they should

closed to seek relief from the Court.1 Wartluft v. Feather River Cmty. Coll., 2010 WL 682305, at *2

10

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010); Pritchard v. Dow Agro Sciences, 255 F.R.D. 164, 177 (W.D. Penn. 2009)

11

(recognizing that a party must make a “timely request” for relief under Rule 16, demonstrating why

12
For the Northern District of California

have complied with the undersigned’s discovery standing order and not have waited until discovery

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

it was unfeasible to meet the scheduled deadlines). As Plaintiffs waited until over one month after

13

the close of discovery, the Court finds that they did not act diligently, have failed to provide an

14

explanation for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order on this issue, and any extension

15

would prejudice Defendants, who have a pending summary judgment motion, the Court must deny

16

their request to extend the discovery deadline.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: November 9, 2011
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court previously informed Plaintiffs that they needed to comply with the discovery
standing order as to subpoenas. See Dkt. No. 99.
2

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4

JONATHAN D COBB SR
Case Number: 10-03907 MEJ

5

Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7
8

v.
ERNEST BREDE
Defendant.

/

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on November 9, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
Jonathan D. Cobb, Sr.
828 Weeks St.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Walter Arlen St. Clair
1227 Sevier St
Menlo Park, CA 94025

18
19
20

Dated: November 9, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3