Figueroa v. Kern County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICENTE BENAVIDES FIGUEROA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00558-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION 13 v. AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER AS MODIFIED 14 KERN COUNTY, et al., (Doc. 82) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 3, 2021, the Court entered a Scheduling Order consistent with the parties’ jointly 18 requested timeline to complete discovery – approximately 19 months for fact discovery, 19 approximately 21 months for expert discovery and 23 months to file dispositive motions. Docs. 20 58, 59. 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. 59 at 7-8. 25 Approximately eight months following the commencement of fact discovery (on January 26 28, 2022), the parties filed a joint report in which they represented that Defendants anticipated 27 producing approximately 21,000 pages of documents within the week, that depositions were 28 anticipated to proceed during the Spring and Summer of 2022, and that the parties did not 1 anticipate any modifications to the scheduling order. (Doc. 75). 2 Approximately six weeks prior to the close of fact discovery (on October 28, 2022), the 3 parties requested and the Court granted a three-month extension of all discovery, pretrial motion 4 and trial dates. (Docs. 79, 80). Although the parties’ stipulation was not accompanied by 5 declarations as required by the Scheduling Order, the Court nevertheless granted the parties’ 6 request given that it was their first proposed amendment to the case management dates and the 7 discovery plan the parties proposed amounted to only a modest extension. The Court discounted 8 the parties’ characterization of one of the named defendants sought to be deposed – Robert 9 Carbone – as a “busy attorney” as a basis for the extension, largely because it appeared, despite 10 Mr. Carbone’s schedule, he would be available for deposition well before the proposed extended 11 date to complete fact discovery. 12 Pending before the Court now is the parties’ second request to amend the case 13 management dates. (Doc. 82). The parties seek an additional three-month extension in discovery 14 dates, a four-month extension in motion filing dates, and a six-month extension in trial dates. 15 Notwithstanding that fact discovery has been ongoing for approximately 20 months, the parties 16 represent in their stipulation that they continue to request and produce documents and seek to 17 undertake party depositions – including the deposition of Mr. Carbone, who the parties represent 18 was not made available consistent with the availability the parties reported in their earlier 19 stipulation and request for extension. 20 * * * * * 21 “Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless 22 the court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case 23 management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 24 1992). As such, a scheduling order is “the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor 25 Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). A scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 26 entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. 27 According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause and 28 only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). If a party is unable to reasonably meet a 1 deadline despite acting diligently, the scheduling order may be modified. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 2 609. If, however, the party “‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify 3 should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) 4 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 5 Here, despite the parties’ repeated assertions of having acted diligently, neither party ever 6 has sought the Court’s intervention to resolve issues that they now report are prompting them to 7 seek a second extension of dates – including Mr. Carbone’s unavailability to appear for 8 deposition and Kern County’s continuing efforts to respond to discovery demands. 9 Based on the pleadings and the parties’ representations in the stipulations seeking 10 amendments to the case management dates, the extended period of time that was permitted for 11 discovery in the original scheduling order, and the earlier grant of a three-month extension, the 12 Court finds good cause to grant only a 45-day extension of all discovery and pretrial motion dates 13 and a larger extension of trial dates. 14 Accordingly, based on the parties’ representations in the stipulation and for good cause 15 shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling order be amended as follows: 16 Deadline Current Amended 17 Discovery cut off: 03/09/2023 04/24/2023 18 Expert Disclosure: 04/09/2023 05/24/2023 19 Supp. Expert Disclosure: 04/23/2023 06/07/2023 20 Expert Discovery Cut Off: N/A 06/26/2023 21 Non Dispositive Motion Filing: 05/29/2023 07/12/2023 22 Non Dispositive Motion Hearing: 07/05/2023 08/23/2023 23 Dispositive Motion Filing: 07/10/2023 08/25/2023 24 Dispositive Motion Hearing: 09/05/2023 10/09/2023 25 Pre-Trial Conference Date: 01/15/2024 03/18/2024 26 Trial 03/12/2024 05/14/2024 27 Further requests for discovery, motion or trial extensions are strongly discouraged and no 28 / / / 1 | requests for extension will be granted without a showing of diligence by the parties and good 2 | cause. 3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ Dated: _ February 2, 2023 | Ww Vv R~ 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28