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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?