Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01763/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01763-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

CYNTHIA MAHON, NO. 2:03-cv-1763-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION,

dba CROWN LIFT TRUCKS, 

and DOES 1 through 50,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the Court is the Ex Parte

Application of Defendant Crown Equipment Corporation dba Crown

Lift Trucks (“Defendant”) to extend the time for filing

dispositive motions in this matter from August 3, 2007 to

September 21, 2007. Defendant argues that it cannot meet the

present motion filing deadline because expert depositions have

not yet been completed, despite the fact that expert designations

were made in late 2006 and despite the fact that the Final

Pretrial Conference is scheduled for October 15, 2007, with trial

to commence thereafter on December 3, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-01763-MCE -DAD Document 64 Filed 08/01/07 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

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

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

2

This case was filed nearly four years ago, on August 25,

2003. The Court’s initial Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order

(“PTSO”) was issued on December 16, 2003. The PTSO called for

designation of expert witnesses to occur by November 12, 2004,

and required that any witness so designated furnish a written

report concurrently with his or her disclosure. Following

issuance of the initial December 16, 2003 PTSO, the pretrial

deadlines were extended pursuant to stipulation of the parties on

five additional occasions: August 10, 2004, November 30, 2004,

February 6, 2006, September 21, 2006, and February 5, 2007.

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, that Rule’s 1

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

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

conference, a court may modify a 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:

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01763-MCE -DAD Document 64 Filed 08/01/07 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

[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).

Although the parties were required by the September 21, 2006 

PTSO extension to designate experts by November 17, 2006, defense

counsel now argues that the August 3, 2007 deadline for filing

dispositive motions, which has been in effect since February 5,

2007, be extended because the depositions of expert witnesses

have not yet been completed. According to the Affidavit of

Douglas A. Sears filed in support of Defendant’s Application,

“[d]ue to conflicts in the calendars and trial schedules of

counsel and expert witnesses, great difficulty has been

encountered in scheduling these depositions.” (Sears Affidavit,

¶ 5). Mr. Sears provides no further details, except that several

of the experts reside out of California, and makes no attempt to

explain why the depositions he requires could not have been

obtained after November 17, 2006 and in time for use in

connection with dispositive motions to be filed by August 3,

2007. In fact, according to Plaintiff’s counsel, dates for the

expert depositions were discussed as early as March of 2007. 

(Affidavit of Benjamin C. Bunn, ¶¶ 4-6).

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01763-MCE -DAD Document 64 Filed 08/01/07 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

Defendant has failed to meet its burden in demonstrating

diligence under these circumstances, and consequently have not

shown good cause for extending the August 3, 2007 dispositive

motion deadline. Extending that deadline until September 21,

2007, as advocated by the defense, would also not allow adequate

time for motions to be resolved prior to the October 15, 2007

Final Pretrial Conference and submission, by the parties, of the

Joint Pretrial Statement fourteen (14) days beforehand.

Based on the Foregoing, Defendant’s Ex Parte Application To

Extend Time to File Dispositive Motions is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01763-MCE -DAD Document 64 Filed 08/01/07 Page 4 of 4