Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc. et al

Filing 177

Order by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 172 Administrative Motion to Correct the Case Management Order.(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
Case No. 14-cv-03998-PJH

5
6

IN RE ROCKET FUEL INC.

7

SECURITIES LITIGATION

8

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CORRECT THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 172

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Before the court is defendants’ administrative motion to correct a date in the

12

court’s Case Management and Pretrial Order (“the CMO”). Dkt. 172. The motion

13

concerns a discrepancy regarding the deadline for amendment of the pleadings. The

14

court held a case management conference in this matter on March 31, 2016. At the

15

hearing, the court adopted a September 5, 2016 deadline for amendment of the

16

pleadings, which was agreed to by the parties on the record, and was reflected in the

17

subsequent minutes order. See Dkt. 145 (the “Minutes Order”); Dkt. 148 at 7 (hearing

18

transcript). The court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the dates for

19

dispositive motions, final pretrial conference, and trial.

20

On May 25, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the dates for dispositive

21

motions, pretrial conference, and trial, which the court approved. Dkt. 151. On May 31,

22

the court entered the CMO reflecting these dates. See Dkt 152. In the “Last Day to

23

Amend Pleadings” section, the CMO gives the deadline as “no later than 90 days before

24

fact discovery cutoff.” Id. Because the fact discovery cutoff is August 2, 2017, the

25

deadline for amendment of the pleadings as stated in the CMO would be May 4, 2017.

26

Defendants’ motion seeks to correct the CMO to conform to the court’s ruling at

27

the case management conference and in the Minutes Order that the deadline for

28

amending the pleadings was September 5, 2016. Defendants aver that they did not

1

notice the discrepancy until plaintiffs recently announced their intention to move for leave

2

to amend the complaint.
The later deadline stated in the CMO was an inadvertent oversight, a fact that

4

should have been clear to the parties. The different deadline stated in the CMO was

5

likely a result of the two-month-long delay between the case management conference

6

and entry of the CMO, due to a meet-and-confer process regarding other scheduling

7

matters. Regardless, plaintiffs agreed to the September 5, 2016 deadline for

8

amendment, and if counsel was confused by the CMO it was incumbent upon them to

9

seek clarification with the court earlier. The court therefore GRANTS defendants’ motion

10

to correct the CMO and hereby clarifies that September 5, 2016—the date suggested by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

the parties and adopted by the court at the case management conference—was the

12

deadline for amendment of the pleadings.

13

Although plaintiffs complain that this ruling would “preclude” them from seeking

14

amendment, this is not the case. Plaintiffs may still file a motion for leave to amend the

15

complaint if they believe that materials uncovered in discovery or other reasons justify

16

amendment. However, as they seek leave to amend after a court-ordered deadline, Rule

17

16’s “good cause” standard—instead of Rule 15(a)’s standard—will apply to any such

18

motion. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992).

19
20
21
22

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Defendants are admonished that reply briefs
are not permitted by the rule governing administrative motions. See Civil L.R. 7-11.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 7, 2016

23
24
25

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2