Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

LIEU THI TRUONG, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00506-MCE-KJN

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte

Application to Modify Pretrial Schedule and Continue Trial Dates

(“Application”) currently set forth in the March 29, 2012,

Pretrial Scheduling Order (“PTSO”) (ECF No. 30). Plaintiffs seek

primarily to continue the current deadlines for completion of

non-expert discovery and filing dispositive motions. For the

following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Application is GRANTED. 

///

///

///

1

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 44 Filed 07/11/12 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

 Once a district court has filed a PTSO pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 16, that Rule’s standards control. 1

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08

(9th Cir. 1992). Prior to a final pretrial conference, this

Court may modify its status order 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, 975 F.2d at 609. In explaining this

standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated that:

[a] district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if

it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of

the party seeking the extension.’ Moreover,

carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason for granting of relief. 

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. If that party was not diligent, the

inquiry should end.

Id. (citations omitted).

Plaintiffs have not shown they were diligent in either

prosecuting this action or in filing their instant Application. 

To the contrary, though this action was initiated in early 2010

by Plaintiffs’ former counsel, little work was done to move the

case forward over the next year and a half. To make matters

worse, in August of 2011, Plaintiffs’ former counsel passed away. 

A few months later, Plaintiffs’ current counsel substituted in as

attorney of record, but, due to current counsel’s trial schedule,

that new firm also paid little attention to this case. 

///

 Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or 1

“Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 44 Filed 07/11/12 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

As a result, counsel came to this Court seeking ex parte relief

just one court day prior to the close of non-expert discovery. 

Given this timeline, Plaintiffs simply cannot show the requisite

diligence the Court would typically require to justify modifying

its PTSO. 

That being said, given the fact that Defendants took no real

issue with modification so long as no delay was attributed to

them, and given the Court’s desire to resolve its cases on the

merits, the circumstances of this case support allowing

modification here. To be clear for the record, the Court does

not interpret Plaintiffs’ papers as faulting Defendants for any

relevant delay, nor, based on the record before it, does the

Court find fault with Defendants either. Accordingly, to avoid

prejudice to Plaintiffs and to ensure the issues in this case are

properly adjudicated, Plaintiffs’ Application (ECF No. 37) is

hereby GRANTED. A Second Amended PTSO will follow. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2012

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 44 Filed 07/11/12 Page 3 of 3