Macias v. City of Delano ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCO MACIAS, et al., Case No.: 1:18-CV-01634 - DAD - JLT 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE 13 v. (Doc. 32) 14 CITY OF DELANO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Counsel for the parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule (Doc. 32). They assert 18 only that the COVID-19 pandemic is occurring and “there is simply no way the parties can 19 complete discovery and other requirements of this case under the current schedule.” Id. at 2. This 20 is a conclusion, not a fact. Indeed, counsel have failed to provide any explanation why they have 21 not completed discovery in this case.1 Not to minimize the impacts of this situation, but the 22 pandemic alone does not explain the failure to complete non-expert discovery.2 23 24 25 1 In February, the parties reported that they only had depositions to take to complete non-expert discovery (Doc. 31 at 26 2). Counsel fail to explain the discovery they have completed since they filed the February status report, they fail to describe the discovery they need to complete, and they fail to detail why they could not complete the needed 27 discovery. 2 The Court has been conducting all civil and criminal hearings, settlement conferences and all other proceedings via 28 video conference for more than four months. The Court does not understand counsel’s unwillingness to more quickly transition to this “new normal.” If the Court has managed to do it, it is difficult to fathom why counsel have been so 1 In addition, counsel have failed to explain why they waited until the day before the 2 discovery deadline to seek an amendment to the case schedule. Notably, the scheduling order 3 reads, “No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained 4 unless it is filed at least one week before the first deadline the parties wish to extend.” (Doc. 5 20 at 4, emphasis in the original.) The order also reads, “The dates set in this order are firm and 6 will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by 7 stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered 8 unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached 9 exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.” Id. at 8, emphasis in the 10 original. 11 The law is clear, that absent a showing of diligence the Court should not grant an 12 amendment to the case schedule3. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th 13 Cir. 1992); Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Counsel have made no 14 effort to demonstrate the exercise of diligence. Therefore, the stipulation to amend the case 15 schedule is DENIED. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: July 29, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Finally, the suggestion that because this Court has declared a judicial emergency, this means that it can afford to allow cases to languish misses the mark. The Court’s scare judicial resources means it absolutely cannot allow cases