Johnson v. Knight Transportation, Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SORYA JOHNSON, Case No.: 1:18-CV-01674- JLT 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE 13 v. (Doc. 24) 14 KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule to extend all deadlines by about four 18 months. They assert that, “due to the number of expert and lay witness depositions, and despite 19 the diligence of the Parties, the Parties have been unable to schedule all depositions in this case to 20 occur by the afore-mentioned deadlines.” (Doc. 24 at 2) Notably, they do not describe the 21 discovery conducted to date, the number of depositions they need to complete, the number they 22 have already completed, when they first learned of the necessity of taking the remaining 23 depositions and why they did not learn of this need earlier, when they began attempting to 24 schedule the depositions and what the impediments are for completing them. Indeed, they have 25 not explained why they need four months to take depositions.1 In short, the parties have failed to 26 27 1 They mention expert depositions, but expert discovery has not begun and will not complete until the end of 28 November. Thus, the Court is uncertain how the parties know now that they cannot complete this discovery within the 1 demonstrate they have acted diligently in completing discovery (Johnson v. Mammoth 2 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609-610 (9th Cir. 1992)) and, consequently, the Court cannot find 3 good cause for amending the case schedule. Thus, the stipulation to amend the case schedule is 4 DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 5, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28