Mandujano v. Geithner

Filing 99

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY 95 . Signed by Judge Beeler on 8/12/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
SALVADOR MANDUJANO,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 10-01226 LB
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION
TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY

13
TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER,

[ECF No. 95]

14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16

On July 20, 2011, Plaintiff Salvador Mandujano and Defendant Timothy Geithner filed a

17

stipulation and proposed order to extend expert discovery from July 11, 2011 to August 25, 2011.

18

ECF No. 95 at 1-2.1 The court previously extended the date to complete expert discovery to July 11,

19

2011, because the parties were unable to schedule a mental health examination prior to its original

20

deadline. ECF No. 64 at 4.

21

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires district judges to enter case

22

management schedules and provides that such schedules “may be modified only for good cause[.]”

23

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4); see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.

24

1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

25

the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY
C 10-01226 LB

1

In this case, although the government signed the stipulation three days prior to the hearing on the

2

motions for summary judgment, Mandujano filed the stipulation 23 days after the court granted

3

summary judgment in favor of Geithner, thereby resolving all of Mandujano’s claims. Additionally,

4

the stipulation was filed nine days after the expert discovery deadline and did not provide any

5

explanation as to why “good cause” exists to extend the deadline nunc pro tunc.

6

Accordingly, the court DENIES the parties’ stipulation to extend the expert discovery deadline.

7

This disposes of ECF No. 95.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: August 12, 2011
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY
C 10-01226 LB

2