Camarena v. C R Bard Incorporated ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUSTO CAMARENA, JR., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00441-DAD-BAM 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO 9 STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 C R BARD INCORPORATED, et al., (Doc. No. 29) 11 Defendants. 12 13 Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery and All Pretrial 14 Deadlines. (Doc. No. 29.) According to the joint motion, the parties “have been engaging in 15 serious settlement discussions” and an order “staying” discovery and pretrial deadlines for 16 ninety (90) days. (Id.) The joint motion is therefore construed as a request to modify the 17 Scheduling Order in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). 18 A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 19 Settlement discussions, in and of themselves, are not good cause to modify a scheduling order. 20 See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., 2013 WL 645741, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 21 2013). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the joint motion without prejudice to a future request 22 to modify the Scheduling Order supported by an adequate showing of good cause. 23 Good cause may consist of the inability to comply with court orders in light of the 24 COVID-19 pandemic. Any such difficulties should be explained. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: September 4, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27