Cavazos v. County of Fresno ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOIDA CAVAZOS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00859-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., (Doc. 45) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 11, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation and request to modify the 18 Scheduling Order to extend the non-expert and expert discovery deadlines, including expert 19 disclosure deadlines, an additional ninety (90) days. (Doc. 45.) The parties explain that they 20 have a private mediation scheduled for December 4, 2024, they “have been in settlement 21 discussions,” and have “agreed to hold off on the party depositions until the mediation had 22 concluded.” (Id. at 2.) They also wish to conduct mediation before incurring substantial 23 expenses associated with retaining their respective experts. (Id.) 24 Having considered the parties’ stipulation, the Court does not find good cause to grant the 25 requested modification of the Scheduling Order issued on September 6, 2023. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). 27 Settlement discussions are not good cause to modify a scheduling order. See Gerawan Farming, 28 1 Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., 2013 WL 645741, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013); see also Burton v. 2 Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00307-LJO-JLT, 2014 WL 3890103, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3 4, 2014 (indicating discussions regarding dispute resolution do not, in and of themselves, arise to 4 good cause for modifying a scheduling order). The parties fail to explain why the non-expert and 5 expert discovery deadlines cannot be met and why discovery cannot be completed in the time 6 allotted. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 7 (indicating district court may modify pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 8 diligence of the party seeking the extension”). Accordingly, the parties’ joint stipulation is 9 DENIED without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: September 12, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28