Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00799/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00799-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY WAYNE KNOX; DORIS RAY 

KNOX; JEREMY EDWARD MOORE, as 

successor-in-interest to VERONICA 

LYNN CARTER, deceased,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal 

corporation; EDWARD CHRISTOPHER 

LOUCHREN, individually and in his 

capacity as a police officer for the CITY 

OF FRESNO; DOUGLAS EDWARD 

COX, individually and in his capacity as a 

police officer for the CITY OF FRESNO,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00799-EPG

ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO MODIFY 

EXPERT DISCOVERY AND MOTION 

DEADLINES IN SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF No. 49)

On October 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation pursuant to Local Rule 144 requesting 

modification of the deadlines set in this case by the Scheduling Conference Order (ECF No. 14),

which have already been extended by the Stipulation and Order Extending Schedule (ECF No. 

32). The Court notes that the some of these deadlines have already passed (including, for 

example, the expert and rebuttal expert disclosure deadlines). Moreover, the parties made no 

attempt to justify the need for an extension or otherwise provide good cause.

///

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 51 Filed 10/15/15 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

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order “may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” To demonstrate “good cause,” a party may be 

required to demonstrate “(1) that she was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable 

Rule 16 order; (2) that her noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, 

notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which 

could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling 

conference; and (3) that she was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it 

became apparent that she could not comply with the order.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 

605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (internal citations omitted). The central inquiry in determining “good 

cause” is the diligence of the party or parties seeking the modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“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”).

The stipulation submitted by the parties lacks any information on the expert discovery

conducted to date or the expert discovery still needed and does not explain why an extension is 

necessary at this juncture. Nor does it explain the failure to seek modification before the passage 

of certain ordered deadlines. Although the parties’ joint desire to modify a schedule carries great 

weight, this Court has an independent responsibility to manage its docket and ensure that cases 

are litigated efficiently. 

Accordingly, the Court is unable to find good cause to modify the schedule set by the 

Scheduling Conference Order as amended by the Stipulation and Order Extending Schedule. The 

Request to Modify Expert Discovery and Motion Deadlines is thus DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

Should the parties renew their request for modification of the scheduling order, they 

should include: (1) an explanation for the request for an extension; (2) a description of the expert 

discovery they intend to seek and have already completed; and (3) a description of the motions 

they intend to file that necessitate an extension to the motion filing deadlines. 

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 51 Filed 10/15/15 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

The parties are also advised that the schedule they have proposed in their Stipulation does 

not provide adequate time for the resolution of non-dispositive motions before the dispositive 

motion filing deadline. In any future stipulations, the parties shall space the dispositive motion 

filing deadline at least eight weeks after the non-dispositive motion filing deadline. The 

dispositive motion filing deadline must be at least twelve weeks before the proposed pretrial 

conference date and the hearing date on dispositive motions must be at least eight weeks before 

the proposed pretrial conference date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015 /s/ Erica P. Grosjean 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00799-EPG Document 51 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 3