Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06970/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06970-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAMBRIA COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-06970-MMC 

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER TO 

CONTINUE TRIAL AND OTHER 

DATES

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Before the Court is the parties’ stipulation, filed October 12, 2018, “to Modify the 

Scheduling Order to Continue Trial and Related Dates,” by which the parties jointly 

request all existing deadlines and dates, including the trial date, be continued for a period 

of ninety days. Having read and considered the parties’ submission, the Court hereby 

rules as follows.

The parties identify three reasons why the requested continuance is warranted. 

As set forth below, however, the parties have made an insufficient showing of good 

cause to modify the Pretrial Preparation Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (providing 

pretrial preparation order “may be modified only for good cause”).

First, defendant’s selection of new lead counsel does not constitute good cause for 

a modification, particularly given that the selected attorney is in the same firm that has 

been representing defendant from the date of its initial appearance.

Second, although the parties assert there are depositions of “defense witnesses”

that “only recently” have been scheduled, and are “likely” to “generate further discovery” 

(see Stip. at 2:18-20), the parties fail to describe in any manner the nature of the 

expected further discovery or why it would require three months to complete.

Case 3:17-cv-06970-MMC Document 39 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Lastly, according to the parties, plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted, since 

August 2018, to serve a deposition subpoena on an individual whom plaintiff “believes” 

was “involved in [his] termination.” (See id. at 2:21-24.) The parties have not, however,

indicated there is any likelihood of plaintiff’s effectuating such service within any particular 

period of time. Moreover, plaintiff may be able to obtain further information about said 

individual’s possible involvement in the termination from the recently scheduled 

depositions of other defense witnesses.

Accordingly, the stipulated request for a continuance is hereby DENIED.

If, after conducting the above-referenced scheduled discovery, the parties are in a 

better position to assess the need for a continuance, they should specify in any future

motion for such relief the nature of any proposed additional discovery they intend to seek

and explain why it could not reasonably have been obtained within the existing schedule. 

Further, to the extent the parties rely on the inability of plaintiff to serve the abovereferenced potential witness, the parties should explain what additional steps plaintiff 

intends to take in an effort to effectuate service.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2018

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

1Additionally, the parties are hereby advised that the trial date to which they 

stipulated is not available.

Case 3:17-cv-06970-MMC Document 39 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 2