Moran v. Altec Industries ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OMAR MORAN, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01236-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER 13 v. MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER 14 ALTEC INDUSTRIES, (Doc. 16) 15 Defendant. Seven (7) Day Deadline 16 17 On or about July 11, 2023, Plaintiffs Omar and Sandy Moran (“Plaintiffs”) filed a 18 complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, against Defendant 19 Altec Industries (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). Defendant removed the action to this Court on August 20 18, 2023. On November 14, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order setting all case 21 management dates governing the litigation of this case. (Doc. 7). 22 On April 15, 2024, the parties filed a joint mid-discovery status conference report (Doc. 23 10) in which the parties proposed extending fact and expert discovery-related dates by 45 days in 24 light of the need to conduct several depositions. Id. at 2-3. On April 19, 2024, the Court granted 25 the parties’ request. (Doc. 11). 26 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request for another modification to the 27 scheduling order. (Doc. 16). The parties represent Plaintiffs’ new counsel needs additional time 1 [not] yet occurred.” Id. at 2. The parties request additional time to conduct fact discovery, 2 expert, discovery, and to adequately prepare for trial. Id. 3 The parties’ stipulated request suffers from several deficiencies. First, the Scheduling 4 Order governing this case provides, among other things: 5 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 6 extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached 7 exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. (Doc. 7 at 7) (emphasis added). 8 9 The parties’ present stipulation fails to comply with the Scheduling Order’s direction that requests 10 to modify case management dates be supported by affidavit and/or declarations. 11 Second, the parties rely on unsworn representations in their stipulation that good cause for 12 the requested extension purportedly exists because, slightly more than two months after the Court 13 granted the parties’ request for a 45-day extension of time to conduct anticipated depositions, 14 Plaintiffs substituted new counsel. (Doc. 16 ⁋ 4). The related, perfunctory assertion that the 15 anticipated depositions “have not yet occurred,” without more, is an insufficient basis on which 16 this Court may conclude the parties have exercised diligence warranting the requested extension. 17 See Zivkovic. v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (where the moving 18 party “was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not be granted”) 19 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 20 Finally, the parties’ request for generous extensions of discovery and motion filing dates 21 without in-kind extensions for pretrial and trial dates unreasonably impacts the Court by 22 shortening it’s time to consider and resolve motions and prepare for trial. Among other things, 23 the parties’ proposed, amended schedule would leave the assigned district judge exactly ten days 24 between hearing and ruling on any dispositive motions. The Court is not amenable to granting 25 extensions of time along the lines the parties propose without an in-kind extension of the pretrial 26 conference and trial dates. 27 In light of the summary representations of the parties, an extension of case management 1 | before it to determine (1) what specific discovery each party has undertaken, (2) what specific 2 | discovery remains for each party (including how many depositions remain to be completed), and 3 | (3) what if any depositions have been noticed and/or confirmed scheduled. Accordingly, the 4 | Court shall direct the parties to submit in support of any renewed stipulated request for extension 5 | of case management dates — in addition to remedying the other deficiencies noted herein — a 6 | discovery timeline based on meet/confer conferences during which the parties tentatively agree 7 | upon discovery completion milestones. 8 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. The parties’ stipulated request to modify the scheduling order (Doc. 16) is DENIED 10 WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the parties’ filing of a renewed, stipulated request consistent 11 with the directions set forth herein; 12 2. Any renewed, stipulated request for modification of the scheduling order SHALL BE 13 FILED within seven days of entry of this order; 14 3. In connection with the filing of any renewed, stipulated request for extension of case 15 management dates, the parties SHALL MEET/CONFER and identify in their renewed 16 filing (1) what specific discovery each party has undertaken, (2) what specific discovery 17 remains for each party (including how many depositions remain to be completed), and (3) 18 what if any depositions have been noticed and/or confirmed scheduled; and 19 4. The parties additionally SHALL IDENTIFY in any renewed filing the witnesses 20 remaining to be deposed. For each such witness, counsel shall certify in the renewed 21 filing that they (1) have contacted the witness, and (2) confirmed a date for proceeding 22 with the deposition of that witness within the timeframe proposed by the parties for the 23 extension of nonexpert discovery. 24 | IT IS SOORDERED. > | Dated: _ June 27, 2024 | br Pr 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28