Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02245/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02245-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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 This case was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDY BERMUDEZ ) 

) 2:05-cv-2245-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

OFFICEMAX, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

On March 16, 2007, Plaintiff’s attorney Monterossa filed a

motion, submitted in the form of a declaration (“Plaintiff’s motion”),

in which he requests Plaintiff be allowed to submit a late opposition

to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The scheduled hearing

date for Defendant’s motion was March 16, 2007, the last hearing date

on which motions could be heard under the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion was submitted by minute order

filed on March 13, 2007. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s

motion prior to the filing made on March 16, 2007, even though Local

Rule 78-230(c) obligated Plaintiff to file an opposition on or before

March 5, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s motion declares that Plaintiff seeks six

depositions and other discovery to oppose Defendant’s motion for

Case 2:05-cv-02245-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

summary judgment. However, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order prescribes

that discovery was to be completed by December 19, 2006. Plaintiff

"d[oes] not specifically request that the court modify its scheduling

order;" he merely requests discovery under Rule 56(f). Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). But an

amendment of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order authorizing Plaintiff to

conduct further discovery is a necessary prerequisite to granting

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) request for additional discovery since the

discovery completion date has passed. See Saavedra v. Murphy Oil

U.S.A., Inc., 930 F.2d 1104, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991) (stating movant

“should have sought an extension of the discovery cutoff date [before

moving for Rule 56(f)continuance.]”); see also Nidds v. Schindler

Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 920-21 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholding denial

of a Rule 56(f) motion where discovery deadline had passed). Further,

an amendment of the last motion hearing date prescribed in the Rule 16

Scheduling Order would also be required. The Rule 16 Scheduling Order

“shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 16(b). The conclusory declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel is

insufficient to meet this standard. 

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

Dated: March 20, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02245-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 2