Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00874/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00874-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 See Am. Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order, filed

August 1, 2006.

2 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHAEL J. OSBORNE,

NO. CIV. S-06-874 FCD GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Michael J.

Osborne’s (“plaintiff”) motion to modify the pretrial scheduling

order1 to permit the filing of a first amended complaint, adding

two newly discovered parties, Sasco Electric, Inc. (“Sasco”) and

Performance Mechanical, Inc. (“Performance”), as defendants.2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Defendant Anheuser-Busch (“defendant”)

does not oppose the motion, provided the court is amendable to

Case 2:06-cv-00874-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 04/04/07 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

3 Presently, discovery closes May 1, 2007; expert

disclosures are due May 15, 2007; rebuttal expert disclosures are

due June 4, 2007; expert discovery closes July 2, 2007; the

dispositive motion deadline is September 7, 2007; the final

pretrial conference is set for November 9, 2007; and trial is set

for February 5, 2008. (Am. Status [Pretrial Scheduling] Order,

filed Aug. 1, 2006.)

2

extending the period for discovery and disclosure of expert

witnesses. (Non-Opp’n, filed Mar. 23, 2007.)3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a

pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of

good cause.” The court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it

cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16,

advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). The “good cause”

standard primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party

requesting the amendment. “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.” Id.

Here, good cause exists to grant the instant motion as

plaintiff has diligently moved for leave to amend upon discovery

of facts suggesting Sasco’s and Performance’s involvement in the

subject incident giving rise to this action. (See generally

Graziano Decl., filed Mar. 12, 2007.) In this personal injury

case, plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries he sustained at

defendant’s Fairfield, California brewery when several cases of

beer fell from a conveyer line, striking plaintiff as he worked

near the conveyer belt. Sasco and Performance were allegedly

Case 2:06-cv-00874-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 04/04/07 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

3

involved in the installation and/or servicing of the subject

conveyer belt. Judicial economy is best served by joinder of all

potentially relevant parties to this incident. 

As the parties agree, the addition of the new defendants

requires extension of the discovery period. That extension, in

turn, necessitates extension of all other pretrial and trial

dates in order to maintain the court’s desired intervals between

pretrial events and ultimately trial and considering the court’s

trial schedule generally. As such, the court hereby modifies the

pretrial scheduling order of August 1, 2006, setting the relevant

dates as follows:

Discovery Closes: January 7, 2008

Expert Disclosures due: January 22, 2008

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

due: February 11, 2008

Expert Discovery Closes: March 10, 2008

Dispositive Motion

Deadline: May 23, 2008

Final Pretrial Conference: July 25, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.

Trial: September 30, 2008 at 

9:00 a.m.

Plaintiff shall file and serve its first amended complaint

within 30 days of the date of this order. Defendants’ response

thereto is due within 20 days of service of the complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: April 4, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-00874-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 04/04/07 Page 3 of 3