Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00558/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00558-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICENTE BENAVIDES FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00558-ADA-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION 

AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER AS 

MODIFIED

(Doc. 82)

On May 3, 2021, the Court entered a Scheduling Order consistent with the parties’ jointly 

requested timeline to complete discovery – approximately 19 months for fact discovery, 

approximately 21 months for expert discovery and 23 months to file dispositive motions. Docs. 

58, 59. Among other things, the Scheduling Order set forth:

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 

extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are 

accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached 

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

Doc. 59 at 7-8.

Approximately eight months following the commencement of fact discovery (on January 

28, 2022), the parties filed a joint report in which they represented that Defendants anticipated 

producing approximately 21,000 pages of documents within the week, that depositions were 

anticipated to proceed during the Spring and Summer of 2022, and that the parties did not 

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 83 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 4
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

anticipate any modifications to the scheduling order. (Doc. 75).

Approximately six weeks prior to the close of fact discovery (on October 28, 2022), the 

parties requested and the Court granted a three-month extension of all discovery, pretrial motion 

and trial dates. (Docs. 79, 80). Although the parties’ stipulation was not accompanied by 

declarations as required by the Scheduling Order, the Court nevertheless granted the parties’ 

request given that it was their first proposed amendment to the case management dates and the 

discovery plan the parties proposed amounted to only a modest extension. The Court discounted 

the parties’ characterization of one of the named defendants sought to be deposed – Robert 

Carbone – as a “busy attorney” as a basis for the extension, largely because it appeared, despite 

Mr. Carbone’s schedule, he would be available for deposition well before the proposed extended 

date to complete fact discovery.

Pending before the Court now is the parties’ second request to amend the case 

management dates. (Doc. 82). The parties seek an additional three-month extension in discovery 

dates, a four-month extension in motion filing dates, and a six-month extension in trial dates. 

Notwithstanding that fact discovery has been ongoing for approximately 20 months, the parties 

represent in their stipulation that they continue to request and produce documents and seek to 

undertake party depositions – including the deposition of Mr. Carbone, who the parties represent 

was not made available consistent with the availability the parties reported in their earlier 

stipulation and request for extension.

* * * * *

“Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless 

the court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case 

management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 

1992). As such, a scheduling order is “the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor 

Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). A scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. 

According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause and 

only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). If a party is unable to reasonably meet a 

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 83 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 4
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

3

deadline despite acting diligently, the scheduling order may be modified. Johnson, 975 F.2d at

609. If, however, the party “‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify

should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Here, despite the parties’ repeated assertions of having acted diligently, neither party ever 

has sought the Court’s intervention to resolve issues that they now report are prompting them to 

seek a second extension of dates – including Mr. Carbone’s unavailability to appear for 

deposition and Kern County’s continuing efforts to respond to discovery demands.

Based on the pleadings and the parties’ representations in the stipulations seeking 

amendments to the case management dates, the extended period of time that was permitted for 

discovery in the original scheduling order, and the earlier grant of a three-month extension, the 

Court finds good cause to grant only a 45-day extension of all discovery and pretrial motion dates 

and a larger extension of trial dates.

Accordingly, based on the parties’ representations in the stipulation and for good cause 

shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling order be amended as follows:

Deadline Current Amended

Discovery cut off: 03/09/2023 04/24/2023

Expert Disclosure: 04/09/2023 05/24/2023

Supp. Expert Disclosure: 04/23/2023 06/07/2023

Expert Discovery Cut Off: N/A 06/26/2023

Non Dispositive Motion Filing: 05/29/2023 07/12/2023

Non Dispositive Motion Hearing: 07/05/2023 08/23/2023

Dispositive Motion Filing: 07/10/2023 08/25/2023

Dispositive Motion Hearing: 09/05/2023 10/09/2023

Pre-Trial Conference Date: 01/15/2024 03/18/2024

Trial 03/12/2024 05/14/2024

Further requests for discovery, motion or trial extensions are strongly discouraged and no 

/ / /

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 83 Filed 02/02/23 Page 3 of 4
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

4

requests for extension will be granted without a showing of diligence by the parties and good 

cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00558-KES-CDB Document 83 Filed 02/02/23 Page 4 of 4