Cook v. C R Bard Incorporated ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES E. COOK, Case No. 1:19-cv-01498-DAD-BAM 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL 9 v. DEADLINES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 C R BARD INCORPORATED, et al., (Doc. No. 31) 11 Defendants. 12 13 Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery and All Pretrial 14 Deadlines. (Doc. No. 31.) According to the joint motion, the parties have scheduled a mediation 15 on August 15 and 16 and seek a “stay” of the case through August 17, 2020, and to continue all 16 remaining deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order by fifty (50) days. (Id.) The joint motion is 17 therefore construed as a request to modify the Scheduling Order in this case pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). 19 A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 20 Settlement discussions, in and of themselves, are not good cause to modify a scheduling order. 21 See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., 2013 WL 645741, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 22 2013). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the joint motion without prejudice to a future request to 23 modify the Scheduling Order supported by an adequate showing of good cause. 24 Good cause may consist of the inability to comply with court orders in light of the 25 COVID-19 pandemic. Any such difficulties should be explained. IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: July 2, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28