Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04742/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04742-7/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NELSON MOLINA,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 06-4742 PJH

v. ORDER

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court are two motions. On November 28, 2007, plaintiff filed an

administrative motion for leave to file a motion to amend his complaint. He represents in

his motion that defendants do not oppose his administrative motion, but will oppose a

motion to amend. The court assumes that plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a motion

to amend rather than simply a motion for leave to amend, because the deadline for filing

motions to amend was set in this court’s November 14, 2006 case management order as

no later than ninety days before the fact discovery cutoff date. The discovery cutoff date

was June 29, 2007, and thus the deadline for filing the motion that plaintiff now seeks to file

was March 29, 2007.

In view of defendants’ non-opposition to the administrative motion, the court does

not wait for the three days afforded defendants by the local rules to oppose. The motion is

GRANTED; plaintiff may file his motion. Plaintiff did not request, but the court suspects

that he will seek to have the motion heard on shortened time. Plaintiff is advised, however,

that the motion must be duly noticed as required by Civil Local Rule 7-2. In view of the

upcoming holidays, the court’s December calendars are already full and motions already

filed are being continued. 

Case 4:06-cv-04742-PJH Document 37 Filed 11/30/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The second motion, filed on November 29, 2007, is a joint administrative motion to

continue the trial and/or pretrial conference date. The basis for the request is less than

clear, but appears to be related to the motion to amend. The parties advise that the fact

discovery cutoff date was extended by stipulation from June 29, 2007 to mid-November

and that plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint apparently based on evidence discovered

during that extended discovery period.

The motion to continue the trial date is DENIED for the following reasons. First, the

court will not continue a trial date scheduled more than a year ago, based on how a motion

not yet filed or granted, will affect trial preparation. Second, the court was not requested to

nor did it approve an enlargement of the discovery period. The pretrial order clearly warns:

The parties may not modify the pretrial schedule by

stipulation....The parties are advised that if they stipulate to a

change in the discovery schedule, they do so at their own risk. 

The only discovery schedule that the court will enforce is the

one set in this order.

Thus, to the extent that plaintiff is faced with a dilemma regarding newly discovered

information, it is of his own making. Third, the court may modify a pretrial schedule “if it

cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 16, Advisory Committee Notes (1983 Amendment). Carelessness is not

compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). The court would be hard

pressed to find that the parties have acted diligently when they apparently completed

discovery more than four months after the deadline set by the court and where plaintiff has

sought leave to amend his complaint a month after discovering the purported basis for

doing so and only a few days before pretrial filings are due.

It appears to the court that the parties have simply ignored portions of the court’s

pretrial order and now find themselves pressed for time to comply with the remaining

portions. The trial will go forward as scheduled, and will be continued only if a conflict with

a criminal case arises on this court’s calendar. However, given the press of business that

Case 4:06-cv-04742-PJH Document 37 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

this court will face on January 3, 2008, the pretrial conference scheduled for that day will be

continued to January 10, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04742-PJH Document 37 Filed 11/30/07 Page 3 of 3