Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00450-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

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

LEONARD GREEN, et al.,

 

Plaintiffs,

v.

BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:16-CV-00450-LJO-JLT

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE REQUEST TO 

AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE

(Doc. 26)

On February 14, 2107, the Court denied the stipulation of counsel to amend the case schedule. 

(Doc. 25) The basis for the order was the absolute lack of diligence shown toward completing even a 

modicum of discovery within the deadlines set. Id. Now, a month after that order, the plaintiffs have 

filed an ex parte request to amend the case schedule. (Doc. 24) In doing so, they blame their failure to 

conduct discovery on the defendants. They assert that the defendants lead them to believe the case 

would settle and it didn’t. They assert the defendants sought extensions on discovery response deadlines 

and delayed beyond the extensions in responding. They assert that the defendants failed to provide dates 

for depositions. What is strikingly absent from the ex parte request is any explanation why plaintiff 

allowed any of these tactics.

Notably, they alone chose whether to grant extensions of time. They alone chose to forego 

discovery on the chance the case would settle. They alone chose not to set depositions despite that they 

Case 1:16-cv-00450-LJO-JLT Document 27 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 2
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

need not obtain the approval of opposing counsel before doing so. And, most important, they alone 

chose to forgo the assistance of the Court in obtaining compliance with discovery efforts (See Doc. 18 at 

3).

1

 The Court has little sympathy for this lack of diligence toward the obligations of discovery and, as 

set forth in its previous order denying the requested amendment to the case schedule, this conduct falls 

well-short of that required to amend the case scheduled. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 

(E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). 

The Court does sympathize with the plaintiffs who, unfortunately, will bear the brunt of their 

attorney’s decisions to allow them to not obtain the discovery they need. However, the Court is 

obligated—as is their counsel—to the dictates of the law. Therefore, the ex parte request to amend the 

case schedule is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

11

In making these observations, the Court DOES NOT CONDONE the defendants’ conduct if it was as described 

in the plaintiffs’ papers. However, their conduct is not yet before the Court.

Case 1:16-cv-00450-LJO-JLT Document 27 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 2