Kanellakopoulos v. Unimerica Life Insurance Company

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING 51 STIPULATION TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRETRIAL DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/31/2017. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

IOANNIS KANELLAKOPOULOS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 15-cv-04674-BLF

v.
UNIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO
EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY AND
OTHER PRETRIAL DEADLINES

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

The parties filed a stipulation to amend the case schedule, subject to the Court’s approval.

14

ECF 51. The parties requested to extend the fact discovery cutoff to August 30, 2017, which

15

impacted other deadlines. As a preliminary matter, the parties’ proposed schedule sets forth the

16

incorrect dates for the pretrial conference and trial, which are actually scheduled for February 8,

17

2018, and February 26, 2018, respectively. ECF 48.

18

The Court further finds that the parties have not made a “good cause” showing to warrant

19

an amendment of the case schedule. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a party must

20

show good cause and obtain the judge’s consent to modify the deadlines set by the Court. See

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

22

seeking the amendment . . . . Carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers

23

no reason to grant relief.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

24

1992) (citations omitted). Here, the parties merely state that they “have been unable to schedule

25

key depositions within the time period established by the court,” supposedly due to “inherent

26

challenges in scheduling depositions during the summer months.” ECF 51. However, the parties

27

do not explain what those “inherent challenges” are and why depositions could not be timely

28

scheduled. Hence, this is not an adequate showing of why the schedule “cannot be reasonably met

1

despite the diligence of the party.” See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th

2

Cir. 2002). The parties also did not meet their burden to show that they acted diligently to comply

3

with the Court’s deadline but were unable to comply “because of the development of matters

4

which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16

5

scheduling conference.” See Clear-View Techs., Inc. v. Rasnick, No. 13-02744-BLF, 2015 WL

6

1307112, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2015) (quoting Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608

7

(E.D. Cal. 1999)). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the stipulation extending the pretrial

8

deadlines set forth in the parties’ proposed order.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: May 31, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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