Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00371/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00371-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A. MICHAEL DE CESARE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MONICA DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00371-SKO

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE STIPULATED REQUEST 

TO AMEND THE SCHEDULE

(Docket No. 17)

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 31, 2013, the parties filed a stipulated request to modify the scheduling 

order ("Stipulation"). (Doc. 17.) The parties are seeking to extend the non-expert discovery 

deadline from December 31, 2013, to February 28, 2014, modify the expert disclosure deadline "to 

occur on or before the fifteenth day following the completion of non-expert depositions with 

disclosure of rebuttal experts 10 days after expert disclosures," and modify the expert discovery 

deadline to "30 days after the disclosure of expert witness information." (Doc. 17, 2:1-6.) The 

parties’ proposed order indicates that "[t]he Scheduling Order shall remain unmodified in all other 

aspects." (Doc. 17, 4:12.)

II. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Stipulation indicates that the parties are requesting an extension 

because they "wish to take the depositions of all parties to this proceeding during the month of 

Case 1:13-cv-00371-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/06/14 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

February to better accommodate the schedule of all parties." (Doc. 17, 1:24-25.) The Court 

issued the Scheduling Order in this case on June 24, 2013, establishing a non-expert discovery 

deadline of December 31, 2013. (Doc. 16.) The parties have not indicated any reason as to why 

discovery could not have been completed by the deadline or why an additional two months is 

needed to conduct the depositions. As such, the parties have not provided good cause for a 

schedule modification, and the request for an extension cannot be granted.

Second, while the parties seek to extend the non-expert discovery deadline to a specific 

date -- February 28, 2014 -- the extensions sought concerning expert discovery are not specific. 

Instead, the parties seek to extend the expert disclosure deadline to on or before 15 days past the 

completion of the non-expert deposition, with rebuttals due 10 days after the expert disclosures 

and the expert discovery deadline extended to 30 days after the disclosure of expert witnesses.

These proposed deadlines are ambiguous and the exact deadlines difficult to determine, since the 

Court would not be aware of dates when the parties make the above referenced disclosures, and 

thus would not be able to track when the respective 15 day, 10 day, and 30 day clocks would begin 

to run. Accordingly, the parties need to propose specific dates for these deadlines.

Lastly, the Stipulation only seeks to extend the current non-expert and expert discovery 

deadlines, and the expert disclosure deadlines. (Doc. 17.) Unfortunately, the dates proposed by 

the parties conflict with the other deadlines currently set in the scheduling order. (See Doc. 16.) 

For example, the requested expert disclosure and discovery deadlines would occur after the current 

non-dispositive motion filing deadline of March 3, 2014, and dispositive motion filing deadline of 

April 7, 2014. As such, the Court infers from the Stipulation that the non-dispositive and 

dispositive motion filing deadlines must also be modified. Although any changes to the motion 

filing dates would also necessitate changes to the pretrial conference and trial dates, the parties fail 

to request any modifications to any of these dates. Additionally, the parties fail to address whether 

they are seeking a continuance of the settlement conference currently set for February 25, 2014.

While the Court is willing to accommodate the parties' request for a modified schedule, 

provided the parties can show good cause for a schedule modification, the Court cannot adopt the 

dates proposed in the Stipulation. If the parties wish to re-file their request for an extension of the 

Case 1:13-cv-00371-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/06/14 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

3

schedule, they should propose a schedule that provides specific dates for the expert disclosure and 

the expert discovery deadlines, and, if necessary, propose specific dates for the filing and hearing 

dates of non-dispositive and dispositive motions, the pre-trial conference date, and the trial date. 

Specifically, the parties should propose dates that maintain at least six (6) weeks between the 

hearing date for the dispositive motions and the pretrial conference as well as at least six (6) weeks 

between the date of the pretrial conference and the trial date. Further, to allow adequate time for 

the Court to consider any dispositive motions, it is recommended that the parties allow 

approximately six (6) weeks between the dispositive motion filing deadline and the dispositive 

motion hearing date. The parties should also address whether a continuance of the settlement 

conference is requested.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties' stipulated request to modify the scheduling order is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 

2. The parties may renew their request by proposing a schedule that comports with the 

specifications set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00371-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 3