Sanbrook v. Office Depot, Inc. et al

Filing 147

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting 133 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE --No. C-07-05938 RMW JAS

E-FILED on

05/07/09

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARY SANBROOK on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Defendant.

No. C-07-05938 RMW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [Re Docket No. 133]

Plaintiff Mary Sanbrook ("Sanbrook") moves to amend the case management order to allow an additional ninety days to complete fact discovery. Sanbrook contends that the amendment is justified by defendant Office Depot's ("Office Depot") failure to respond to Sanbrook's discovery requests until the assigned magistrate granted a motion to compel on March 30, 2009. Sanbrook also states that Office Depot has not yet responded to additional discovery requests dated March 13, 2009. Office Depot responds that the above facts do not justify an amendment of the case management order. In particular, Office Depot contends that it will promptly produce the documents at issue in the motion to compel, as well as those requested on March 13, 2009. Beyond

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

those documents, Office Depot states that no follow-up discovery will be necessary, and therefore that an amendment of the case management order is inappropriate. A case schedule may not be modified "except upon a showing of good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" requirement focuses primarily on the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, Office Depot does not suggest that Sanbrook has not been diligent in pursuing discovery. Furthermore, Office Depot has not yet produced all of the requested documents, and it is possible that follow-up discovery might be necessary. Because the fact-discovery deadline is fast approaching, the court will grant the motion to amend. However, the court concludes that, based on Sanbrook's amendment request, only a forty-five day extension is justified subject to reconsideration at the next case management conference, which is set for June 5, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.. ORDER For the reasons stated above, Sanbrook's motion to amend the case management order is granted, but for forty-five days only. Plaintiff shall complete fact discovery by June 22, 2009, subject to reconsideration at the next case management conference on June 5, 2009 at 10:30 a.m..

DATED:

05/07/09

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE --No. C-07-05938 RMW JAS 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Scott Richard Kaufman Barbara Quinn Smith Marnie Cherie Lambert Thomas K. Caldwell Counsel for Defendants: David Michael Walsh Robin Jonathan Samuel Julie Shepard Laura Michelle Wilson [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated:

05/07/09

JAS Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE --No. C-07-05938 RMW JAS 3