Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00590/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00590-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIL CROSTHWAITE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CELIK ENGINEERING CORPORATION, et

al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-0590 MMC (EMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, to continue the trial, as well as other pretrial dates and deadlines, by 60

days. Defendants have filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. Having considered

the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter

suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 28, 2006,

and rules as follows.

Plaintiffs represent that their “claims are fully developed and [p]laintiffs stand ready

for trial.” (See Pls.’ Mot. at 3:11.) Plaintiffs state, however, that they need additional time

to “conduct a limited amount of discovery of [d]efendants’ defenses,” (see id. at 4:21-22),

specifically, the defense that defendant Celik Engineering Corporation’s workers were not

performing work covered under the subject collective bargaining agreement, irrespective of

how the work might have been described on timecards. In particular, plaintiffs assert a

Case 3:05-cv-00590-MMC Document 27 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 3
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 1

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 8, 2005.

2

need to request documents from defendant Hasmet Celik and to depose him, and also to

depose some of the workers.

On July 29, 2005, the Court conducted a case management conference, at which

time the Court set a discovery cutoff date of January 13, 2006, as well as a trial date of

June 26, 2006. (See Civil Minutes, filed July 29, 2006.) Rule 16(b) provides that a pretrial

scheduling order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause.” See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16(b). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of

the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F. 2d 604,

609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing

the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry

is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. “If that party was not

diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.; see, e.g., Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.,

302 F. 3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding district court properly denied plaintiff’s

request to modify scheduling order to extend discovery cutoff, where plaintiff “did not

demonstrate diligence in complying with the dates set by the district court”). Consequently,

the threshold issue is whether plaintiffs were diligent prior to the January 13, 2006

discovery cutoff.

Plaintiffs were aware, no later than September 13, 2004, months before the instant

action was commenced,1 of defendants’ position that the workers in question had not

performed covered work and that the manner in which such work was described on their

timecards was not, contrary to plaintiffs’ position, dispositive of the issue. (See Hodson

Decl. Exs. B-E.) Indeed, plaintiffs concede that they prepared their case “in light of

[d]efendants’ defenses.” (See Pls.’ Mot. at 5:3-5.) Thus, plaintiffs cannot claim surprise as

to the nature of the defense, nor do they do so. Further, the discovery that plaintiffs failed

to timely propound is not of a complicated nature, nor does it appear to be of the type that

would be time-consuming to propound. Rather, plaintiffs argue that an extension of the

Case 3:05-cv-00590-MMC Document 27 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 3
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

2

According to plaintiffs, Lozano-Batista went on leave at “the end of February,” and

was “on a limited schedule” for “several weeks prior to her leave.” (See Phillips Decl. ¶ 5.) 

As noted, the discovery cutoff was January 13, 2006. Assuming Lozano-Batista’s limited

schedule negatively affected her ability to propound the subject discovery, the limited

schedule appears to have begun after the discovery cutoff and thus is of little to no

consequence in determining whether plaintiffs were diligent prior to the expiration of the

discovery cutoff.

3

discovery deadline, and the trial, is necessitated by “unique circumstances of [p]laintiffs’

counsel.” (See Pls.’ Mot. at 4:22-23.)

According to plaintiffs, the unique situation was that Tracy Mainguy (“Mainguy”),

plaintiffs’ initial counsel, went on a pregnancy leave in October 2005, and that Concepcion

E. Lozano-Batista (“Lozano-Batista”), the attorney who thereafter primarily worked on the

case on behalf of current counsel Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, went on a pregnancy

leave in late February 2006. Plaintiffs fail to explain, however, why Mainguy was unable to

propound the subject discovery before her maternity leave commenced. Likewise, plaintiffs

fail to explain why Lozano-Batista was unable to propound the subject discovery before

January 13, 2006, or, if she was,2 why other attorneys with Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld

were unable to timely propound the subject discovery. In sum, there is an insufficient

showing of diligence, and, consequently, plaintiffs have not shown the requisite good cause

to warrant a continuance. See Johnson, 975 F. 2d at 609.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, plaintiffs’ motion to continue is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00590-MMC Document 27 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 3