Reyes v. County of Kern ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANNA REYES, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-01340-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON STIPULATION AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER AS MODIFIED 13 v. (ECF No. 24) 14 COUNTY OF KERN, ET AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to amend the case management 18 dates – the third such request filed in this case in less than five months. (ECF No. 24). The 19 stipulation is not accompanied by a supporting declaration as required by the scheduling order 20 entered in December 2021 (ECF No. 12 at p. 6). In their unsworn representations, counsel assert 21 that a four-month extension in all discovery, pretrial motion and trial dates is warranted for two 22 reasons: the recently proposed guardian ad litem will be unavailable to appear for a deposition 23 until late-May 2023 (at least two months after the current close of discovery), and one of plaintiffs’ 24 assigned attorneys recently departed the representing law firm, resulting in the reassignment of a 25 newly joined attorney (and, presumably, a need for additional time to familiarize himself with the 26 case). 27 Regarding plaintiffs’ proffered need for additional time due to the recent reassignment of counsel, in the parties’ earlier request for a second extension of the case management dates, former 1 counsel attested he was transitioning out of the law firm representing plaintiffs on December 9, 2 2022. (ECF No. 19). The Court found that the anticipated assignment of replacement counsel 3 presented good cause for a two-month discovery extension, but not the four months the parties 4 requested, for two reasons. First, the request for extension was made just three weeks prior to the 5 close of the already-extended period to conduct fact discovery, and presumably at a time where 6 the majority of fact discovery already had been completed. Second, another of plaintiffs’ lawyers 7 noticed in the case (Benjamin Meiselas) has been involved in the action since as early as December 8 2021 (see ECF No. 9), and presumably is knowledgeable enough about the case to assist with the 9 transition to the newly assigned attorney. 10 As for the anticipated unavailability of the newly proposed guardian ad litem to appear for 11 deposition, the Court questions why plaintiffs waited more than one year after the beginning of 12 fact discovery to identify and move the Court to appoint a guardian for the two minor successors- 13 in-interest named as plaintiffs – and why defendants did not alert the Court, and seemingly 14 plaintiffs, of the need for appointment of a guardian ad litem before this late juncture. 15 A scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 16 disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 17 (9th Cir. 1992). As the Court recounted in its order granting the parties’ first request for a four- 18 month extension in the case management dates, any further requests for extensions by the parties 19 would be “narrowly construed.” (ECF No. 17). 20 The parties’ stipulation presents limited good cause for a narrowly tailored extension in the 21 period to complete fact discovery to accommodate the anticipated deposition of the proposed 22 guardian ad litem, but no additional fact discovery may be undertaken following the scheduled 23 termination on March 13, 2023. Additionally, the Court will extend the dates for dispositive 24 motions to account for the belated deposition of the proposed guardian ad litem and grant a brief 25 continuance of the Pretrial Conference. No other extensions will be granted. 26 Accordingly, based on the parties’ representations in the stipulation and for good cause 27 / / / 1 | shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling order be amended as follows: 2 3 | Deadline Current Amended 4 | Fact Discovery cut off: 03/13/2023 03/13/2023** 5 ** The deposition of the proposed guardian ad litem may be taken no later than 06/05/2023 6 | Expert Disclosure: 03/27/2023 03/27/2023 7 | Supp. Expert Disclosure: 04/28/2023 04/28/2023 8 || Expert Discovery Cut Off: 05/15/2023 05/15/2023 9 | Non-Dispositive Motion Filing: 06/05/2023 06/05/2023 10 || Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing: 07/06/2023 07/21/2023 11 | Dispositive Motion Filing: 06/26/2023 08/07/2023 12 || Dispositive Motion Hearing: 07/25/2023 09/13/2023 13 || Pre-Trial Conference Date: 09/08/2023 10/02/2023 14 | Trial 10/23/2023 10/23/2023 15 16 Further requests for discovery, motion or trial extensions are discouraged and no requests 17 | for extension will be granted without a showing of diligence by the parties and good cause. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ February 6, 2023 | Word bo 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28