Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02504/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02504-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STAFFWORKS, INC., a No. 2:05-cv-2504-MCE-GGH

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

COASTAL PACIFIC FOOD 

DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a

California corporation;

WALTER STILPHEN, an

individual; FRANK

GONZALES, SR., an 

individual; and DOES 1-20

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Defendant and Counter-Claimant Frank Gonzales, Sr.

(“Gonzales”) has moved for an Order extending fact discovery in

this matter by thirty (30) days, from January 25, 2007 to

February 26, 2007. The Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order was

issued in this matter on March 16, 2006, and no other extension

requests have been made.

///

Case 2:05-cv-02504-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/23/07 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

2

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, that Rule’s

standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975

F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Prior to the final pretrial

conference, which is set in this matter for September 24, 2007,

the Court may modify its status order upon a showing of “good

cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

 “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses

on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment

and the prejudice to the opposing party, 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).

Here, Gonzalez’ Motion indicates that the potential need to

extend fact discovery did not become apparent until December 22,

2006, when Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Staffworks, Inc.

(“Staffworks”) filed its Motion for Leave to Exceed Ten

Depositions prior to the January 25, 2007 discovery deadline. 

Counsel thereafter timely moved to continue the discovery

deadline on January 8, 2007, and obtained an Order Shortening

Time to have this matter heard on an expedited basis.

Case 2:05-cv-02504-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/23/07 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

In her Motion, Counsel for Gonzales explains that because of

her trial schedule, and because the attorney assigned to handle

fact discovery in this matter required surgery that rendered her

unavailable for all purposes until January 29, 2007, scheduling

the additional depositions prior to January 25, 2007 would be

“virtually impossible”. (Decl. of Jennifer A. Scott, ¶¶ 4-9) 

Although counsel for Gonzales predicates her request on whether

Staffworks is indeed permitted to obtain extra depositions, on

January 18, 2007 Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows did in fact

permit Staffworks to obtain an additional three (3) depositions

for a total of thirteen (13).

No opposition to Gonzales’ request has been made. Given

that non-opposition, and good cause appearing therefor as

enumerated above, the Motion of Defendant and Counter-Claimant

Frank Gonzales, Sr. is hereby GRANTED. The deadline for 1

completing fact discovery in this matter is hereby continued to

February 26, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02504-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 3