Hayes v. Kern County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES HAYES., Case No. 1:19-cv-01722-CDB Member Case No. 1:20-cv-01820-CDB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY, 14 KERN COUNTY, et al., PRETRIAL AND TRIAL EXTENSION 15 Defendants. (Doc. 60) 16 17 On March 10, 2020, the Court entered a Scheduling Order consistent with the parties’ 18 jointly requested timeline to complete discovery – approximately nine months to complete fact 19 discovery, and approximately 11 months to complete expert discovery and file dispositive 20 motions. Docs. 8, 11. Among other things, the Scheduling Order set forth: 21 The dates set in this order are firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations 22 extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached 23 exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. 24 Doc. 11 at 6. 25 The day before fact discovery was scheduled to close, the parties jointly requested and the 26 Court granted a four-month extension of discovery, pretrial and trial dates due to unforeseen 27 circumstances that hindered the parties’ ability to complete discovery timely. Docs. 15, 17. 28 On April 21, 2021 – approximately one month after the extended time to complete fact 1 discovery – the parties requested the Court stay the case pending a decision by the Judicial Panel 2 on Multi-District Litigation. Doc. 26. The Court granted the stay but noted it did not 3 countenance reopening lapsed discovery deadlines. Doc. 27. 4 Shortly after the stay was lifted, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s request for a further 5 extension of discovery and motion dates. Doc. 31. The Court’s order permitted the parties to 6 complete depositions only if already noticed by September 3, 2021, to complete expert discovery 7 by November 12, 2021, and to file dispositive motions no later than January 3, 2022. Id. 8 Approximately six weeks later, the parties sought a further extension, and the Court denied the 9 extension for the parties’ failure to demonstrate diligence and good cause. Docs. 33, 34. 10 Following Defendants’ filing of motions for summary judgment in January 2022, the 11 parties convened for a status conference and the Court vacated the March 2022 and May 2022 12 pretrial conference and trial dates (respectively) to resolve the issue of possibly consolidating the 13 case with a related case (Hayes v. Rojas, et al., No. 1:20-cv-01820-BAM). Docs. 35, 37, 44, 45. 14 The Court ultimately consolidated the two related actions on May 4, 2022, and incorporated the 15 Scheduling Order from the related action as the governing scheduling order. Docs. 49, 52. That 16 Scheduling Order provided the parties an additional nine months to complete fact discovery and 17 more than ten months to complete expert discovery. Doc. 52. 18 Now, approximately one week before the scheduled close of fact discovery, the parties 19 again seek a further extension of time to complete discovery. Doc. 60. The parties offer a 20 threadbare, single-sentence basis for the request: “Good cause exists for this continuation as 21 despite the Parties’ diligence, scheduling conflicts have prevented the Parties’ ability to conduct 22 the depositions noticed before this matter was stayed.” 23 The initial Scheduling Order and Local Rule 144 were and are clear: “Stipulations 24 extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by 25 affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for 26 granting the relief requested.” (Doc. 11). The parties’ present stipulation is inconsistent with 27 these requirements. As the Court reiterated to the parties over one year ago in denying an earlier 28 request for an extension: 1 “Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are 2 intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). As such, a scheduling order 3 is “the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). A scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 4 entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be 5 modified only for good cause and only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).” (Doc. 34). 6 7 If a party is unable to reasonably meet a deadline despite acting diligently, the scheduling g | order may be modified. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If, however, the party “‘was not diligent, the 9 || inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison 10 | Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 11 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 Here, the parties represent they have been diligent in complying with repeatedly extended 13 | discovery deadlines, but make no showing in the face of the procedural history recounted above 14 | that their efforts have been, in fact, diligent. Given the number of discovery extensions already 15 | granted in this case, the parties are not entitled to another extension to engage in additional 16 | discovery. See Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (“Zivkovic did not demonstrate diligence in complying 17 | with the dates set by the district court, and has not demonstrated ‘good cause’ for modifying the 18 || scheduling order, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b).”). 19 Accordingly, the stipulated request for a further extension of discovery, pretrial and trial 20 | dates is DENIED. 21 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 22 ) | Bn Oe Dated: _ January 26, 2023 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28