Correa v. Dunne ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LINA CORREA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00872-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE 13 v. (Doc. 40) 14 M. DUNNE, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Lina Correa (“Plaintiff”) and 18 Defendants M. Dunne, R.E. Pinzon, and J.K. Bonilla (“Defendants”) to modify the case schedule. 19 (Doc. 40). 20 Background 21 Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants on August 10, 2021, in the Superior Court 22 of the State of California, County of Kings, with the filing of a complaint asserting claims 23 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law in connection with the death of Antonio Vasquez 24 while he was in custody at Corcoran State Prison. (Doc. 1). On July 14, 2022, Defendants 25 removed the action to this Court. Id. 26 On November 4, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. 27 (Doc. 15). The scheduling order advised the parties: “The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify 1 is made by stipulation.” Id. at 7. Pursuant to the scheduling order, non-expert discovery closed 2 on June 2, 2023, and expert discovery closed on August 14, 2023. Id. at 2. On December 9, 3 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint and on April 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative 4 second amended complaint. (Docs. 21, 30). 5 On April 21, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ first stipulated request to modify the case 6 schedule to the extent of extending the time to complete non-expert discovery to August 30, 2023, 7 with the exception of the deposition of Adrian Madrigal, and extending the time to complete 8 expert discovery to November 15, 2023. (Docs. 29, 34). 9 Two days after the close of non-expert discovery (e.g., on September 1, 2023), the parties 10 filed a second stipulated request to modify the case schedule. (Doc. 36). In its order dated 11 September 5, 2023, the Court found that the parties’ open-ended request for an extension of 12 discovery was untimely as some of the dates the parties sought to extend already had expired. 13 (Doc. 37 at 2) (citing Local Rule 144(d)). Nevertheless, the Court found that the supporting 14 declarations of counsel demonstrated good cause for the limited purpose of extending the time to 15 facilitate non-expert discovery pertaining to Mr. Vasques (decedent’s father) and for deposing 16 Mr. Madrigal. Id. The Court’s order also permitted the parties to continue undertaking expert 17 discovery concurrent with the limited extension of non-expert discovery (through and including 18 January 30, 2024) and determined no other extension was warranted. Id. 19 Two weeks after the close of non-expert and expert discovery (e.g., on February 13, 20 2024), the Court ordered the parties to file a joint report identifying dates of mutual availability 21 for pretrial conference and trial and to appear for a settlement conference. (Doc. 39). Instead, on 22 February 20, 2024, the parties filed a third stipulated request to modify the case schedule. (Doc. 23 40). Specifically, the parties request the Court vacate its September 5, 2023, order modifying the 24 case schedule, extend the deadlines to complete non-expert and expert discovery, and reset the 25 trial date to a date in September 2024. Id. at 2. In a supporting declaration, counsel for Plaintiff 26 attests that Mr. Vazquez stated through his attorney he would not be pursuing a claim (thereby 27 presumably obviating the need for further discovery regarding his putative claim) and that the 1 parties agreed to forgo the Madrigal deposition in light of the still pending criminal prosecution. 2 (Doc. 40-2). 3 Standard of Law 4 District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, 5 amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Once 6 entered, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R 7 Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson 8 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). 9 “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 10 disregarded by counsel without peril.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 12 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As the Court of Appeals has observed: 13 In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts in both the federal and state systems routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster 14 efficient treatment and resolution of cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties, and 15 the best way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines. Parties must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply 16 strictly with scheduling and other orders. . . 17 Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 18 cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 19 975 F.2d at 609. If the moving party is unable to reasonably meet a deadline despite acting 20 diligently, the scheduling order may be modified. Id. If, however, the moving party “‘was not 21 diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. So. 22 Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 23 Discussion 24 Notwithstanding that all discovery closed in this action on January 30, 2024, two weeks 25 later, the parties filed the instant request for additional time to complete unspecified discovery 26 and delay trial. Although it appears the parties exercised diligence in using the additional time 27 provided by the Court in its September 5, 2023, granting their second requested extension of 1 extended yet again. 2 The parties’ belated request to undertake additional and unspecified discovery flies in the 3 face of the clear command of the scheduling order: “No motion to amend or stipulation to amend 4 the case schedule will be entertained unless it is filed at least one week before the first deadline 5 the parties wish to extend.” (Doc. 15 at 3). The parties’ belated request separately contravenes 6 Local Rule 144(d), providing that: “Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the 7 Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes 8 apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the 9 pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.” On this record, the parties have 10 failed to demonstrate diligence sufficient to support a finding of good cause for any further 11 extensions of discovery deadlines. See Jerpe v. Aerospatiale, No. CIV. S-03-555 LKK/DAD, 12 2007 WL 781977, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2007) (“plaintiffs delayed until after even the close of 13 discovery to bring their motion to modify the scheduling order. This is, as defendants point out, 14 the antithesis of diligence” under Local Rule 144). 15 Conclusion and Order 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 17 1. The parties’ stipulated request to modify the case schedule (Doc. 40) is DENIED; 18 2. The parties SHALL APPEAR for pretrial conference on July 15, 2024, at 1:30 p.m., 19 located at the United States District Courthouse, 2500 Tulare Street, in Fresno, California, 20 before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The parties are referred to the Scheduling 21 Order (Doc. 15 at 4-5) regarding their obligation to file a joint pretrial statement in 22 advance of the pretrial conference; 23 3. The parties SHALL APPEAR for trial, estimated to last between 4 and 5 days, on 24 September 17, 2024, at 8:30 a.m., located at the United States District Courthouse, 2500 25 Tulare Street, in Fresno, California, before District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston; and 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 4. The parties SHALL APPEAR for settlement conference before the undersigned on April 2 10, 2024, at 10:00 am. The Court will enter a separate order governing participation in 3 and attendance at the settlement conference. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ February 22, 2024 | Word 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28