Hayes v. Kern County ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CHARLES HAYES, Case No. 1:19-cv-01722 -JLT 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO 14 AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE vs. (Doc. 33) 15 KERN COUNTY, et al.; 16 Defendants. 17 18 The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule once again (Doc. 33) Notably, 19 last November, the Court granted the stipulation to amend the case schedule (Doc. 16) to allow 20 non-expert discovery to continue through March 19, 2021. (Doc. 17) Despite this, the plaintiff 21 failed to complete the discovery he claimed he needed in the stipulation to amend the case 22 schedule (Doc. 16). 23 A month after the non-expert discovery deadline passed, the parties sought a stay of this 24 case due to the attempt to transfer this case to the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation 25 (Doc. 26). The Court granted the stay but noted, “though the Court GRANTS the stipulation, it 26 does NOT accept that the stay is a method to reopen deadlines that have passed when the stay is 27 lifted.” (Doc. 27) 28 Despite this, once the MDL was rejected, the plaintiff sought to extend deadlines, 1 including those that had lapsed before the stay was ordered (Doc. 30). The Court granted the 2 request in part and required that the non-expert discovery be completed by September 3, 3021 3 and set new dates related to expert discovery (Doc. 31). Nevertheless, the plaintiff has now 4 failed again to conduct the needed discovery (Doc. 33). He explains that his counsel took 5 depositions in other cases rather than conduct the needed discovery in this case. Id. at 2. 6 Plaintiff’s counsel offers no further explanation why those other cases were more pressing or 7 why he was unaware that he did not have the time to devote to this case when he sought the last 8 extension of the non-expert deadline or why his co-counsel could not have taken the 9 depositions needed in this case (Doc. 31). 10 Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless 11 the court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case 12 management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 13 1992). As such, a scheduling order is “the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor 14 Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). A scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 15 entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 16 610. According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good 17 cause and only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Thus, because the stipulation 18 fails to demonstrate good cause to amend the case schedule, the stipulation is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: September 9, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28