Jones v. Vallejo ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 SCARLETT ANN JONES, an No. 2:22-cv-01574 WBS JDP individual, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION v. TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 15 CITY OF VALLEJO, VALLEJO POLICE 16 DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE MURPHY, and DOES 1 through 20, 17 Defendants. 18 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Defendants move to modify the scheduling order. 21 (Docket No. 31.)1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), 22 “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 23 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Unlike Rule 24 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith 25 of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice 26 to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard 27 1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral 28 argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 1 primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 2 amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 3 609 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, Advisory 4 Committee’s Notes (1983 Amendment) (directing courts to consider 5 whether a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the 6 diligence of the party seeking the extension”). 7 The court’s scheduling order issued on May 26, 2023 set 8 the discovery deadline as June 7, 2024, and the dispositive 9 motion deadline as September 5, 2024, consistent with the dates 10 agreed upon by defendants in their Amended Joint Status 11 Report. (See Docket No 30.) The case was accordingly set for 12 pretrial conference on December 2, 2024, with trial to begin on 13 February 4, 2025. (See Docket No. 31.) 14 Defendants now seek to extend all current dates by nine 15 months, arguing that there have been delays in discovery and the 16 filing of defendants’ motion to dismiss because plaintiff’s 17 counsel changed her mind about filing a First Amended Complaint 18 and reneged on the parties’ agreement to sign a stipulation on 19 that issue. However, it appears that defense counsel had been 20 aware of the need to file a motion to dismiss for at least seven 21 months prior to eventually doing so. (See id.; Docket No. 34.) 22 Defense counsel has not explained to the court why, despite this 23 knowledge, he filed the motion only three months prior to the 24 close of discovery. 25 Even if the delays in filing the motion to dismiss were 26 justified, that does not explain or excuse defense counsel’s 27 admitted failure to timely conduct discovery. For example, 28 defense counsel argues that a continuance of the discovery eee RII ROI EOE RE IRI NRE IE EI OE 1 deadline is necessary because there have been difficulties in 2 scheduling the deposition of defendant Murphy. It is not at all 3 clear why defendants should need to take that deposition; to the 4 contrary, the documents provided by defendants indicate that 5 | plaintiff noticed Mr. Murphy for deposition, not defendants. 6 (See Docket No. 33 at 31). Regardless, it appears that the 7 | parties made no efforts to schedule that deposition between 8 | October 2023 and March 2024, (See id. at 38-55.) 9 Moreover, there is still time remaining in which to 10 conduct that deposition, and defendants’ motion does not indicate 11 that it has been or will be impossible to conduct the deposition 12 | prior to the scheduled deadline. 13 Altogether, it does not appear to the court that 14 defense counsel has acted diligently such that a modification 15 would be warranted. 16 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to 17 | modify the scheduling order (Docket No. 33) be, and the same 18 hereby is, DENIED. . ak. a bean, (hi. 19 Dated: May 7, 2024 WILLIAMB.SHUBB .}.}.}.}.}©=©—..” 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28