Klay v. Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 97

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 93 , 94 STIPULATED REQUESTS TO CHANGE CASE SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/9/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

KRISTOPHER KLAY,

Case No. 14-cv-00326-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE STIPULATED REQUESTS
TO CHANGE CASE SCHEDULE
[RE: ECF 93, 94]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The schedule in this case was set on May 23, 2014. See Case Management Order, ECF 20.

14

In November 2014, the Court modified the schedule to extend both the discovery cut-off and the

15

ADR deadline to April 24, 2015. See Civil Minutes, ECF 41; Stipulation and Order Rescheduling

16

ADR, ECF 40. The schedule otherwise has remained unchanged since it was set. Under this

17

schedule, the last day to hear dispositive motions is May 7, 2015 and trial is set for August 10,

18

2015. See Case Management Order, ECF 20.

19

On April 8, 2015, the parties filed a stipulated request to change the ADR deadline from

20

April 25, 2015 to July 10, 2015. See Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding ADR Deadline,

21

ECF 93. They also filed a stipulated request to change the case schedule to continue the hearing

22

on Defendant South Lake Tahoe’s three pending motions, currently set for May 7, 2015, to July

23

11, 2015; extend fact and expert discovery cut-offs to July 10, 2015; and continue trial to

24

September 21, 2015.

25

The case schedule “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”

26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The parties’ stipulated requests are not accompanied by any declaration

27

showing good cause for changing the case schedule. The requests are prefaced with the statement

28

that “WHEREAS, Plaintiff Kristopher Klay is unavailable related to trial commencing on April

1

17, 2015,” but no explanation is provided as to how Plaintiff is involved with that trial or why this

2

Court should change its long-established case schedule in deference to that trial.

3

Accordingly, the parties’ stipulated requests to change the case schedule are DENIED.

4

That denial is without prejudice to a new request to change the schedule that is properly supported

5

by a declaration or other evidence showing good cause for the requested change. The parties are

6

advised, however, that the Court’s trial calendar is completely full through mid-2016. If the

7

parties give up their current trial date of August 10, 2015, the case would be reset for trial in June

8

or July 2016.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: April 9, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2