Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01325-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA ANDERSON, CASE NO. CV F 05-1325 LJO TAG

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

vs. DEADLINES

(Doc. 26.)

FRESNO COUNTY HUMAN

SERVICES SYSTEM,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this Title VII employment termination and discrimination action, plaintiff Paula Anderson

(“Ms. Anderson”) seeks to extend the nonexpert and expert discovery cutoffs due to recent medical

disability of her attorneyBenjamin Robinson (“Mr. Robinson”). Defendant Fresno County (“County”)

opposes discovery cutoff extensions on grounds that Ms. Anderson has failed to establish good cause

for extensions and that Ms. Anderson and Mr. Robinson have not diligently pursued this action. For the

reasons discussed below, this Court EXTENDS the non-expert discovery cutoff to May 11, 2007 and

the expert discovery cutoff to June 1, 2007.

Case 1:05-cv-01325-LJO-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/05/07 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

Mr. Robinson did not attend the originally scheduled April 12, 2006 scheduling conference to prompt this 1

Court’s order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him and to result in delay to set a schedule for this

action.

2

BACKGROUND

This Court issued its May8, 2006 scheduling order to set an April 20, 2007 nonexpert discovery

1

cutoff and a May 11, 2007 expert discovery cutoff. On March 24, 2007, Ms. Anderson filed her ex parte

application to continue the non-expert discovery cutoff to June 2, 2007 and the expert discovery cutoff

to June 23, 2007 on grounds that migraine headaches incapacitated Mr. Robinson and prevented him to

work during November 22, 2006 to January 22, 2007 and February 14, 2007 to March 9, 2007. Mr.

Robinson produces a doctor’s note of continued disability during February 14, 2007 to March 9, 2007.

The County opposes the discovery extensions on grounds that Ms. Anderson has failed to

prosecute this action other than belatedlyserve F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. The County notes

that Ms. Anderson has failed to engage in discovery, including failure to designate expert witnesses and

to respond to the County’s written discovery to prompt a pending motion to compel. 

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2) and (3), district courts must enter scheduling ordersto establish

deadlines for, among other things, “to file motions” and “to complete discovery.” Scheduling orders

may also include “the date or dates for conferences before trial, a final pretrial conference, and trial.”

F.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “A schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by

leave of the district judge or, when authorized by local rule, by a magistrate judge.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(b).

The scheduling order “shall control the subsequent course of the action unless modified by a subsequent

order.” F.R.Civ.P. 16(e).

Scheduling orders “are the heart of case management,” Koplve v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15,

18 (3 Cir. 1986), and are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth rd

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9 Cir. 1992). A “scheduling conference order is not a frivolous th

piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at

610. In Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained:

. . . Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot

Case 1:05-cv-01325-LJO-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/05/07 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

reasonably bemet despite the diligence ofthe party seeking the extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) . . . Moreover, carelessness is not

compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. . . . [T]he

focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If

that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of

the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. Zimmer,

163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In addressing the diligence requirement, this Court has noted:

Accordingly, to demonstrate diligence under Rule 16's “good cause” standard, the

movant may be required to show the following: (1) that she was diligent in assisting the

Court in creating a workable Rule 16 order, see In re San Juan Dupont, 111 F.3d at 228;

(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, see Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; 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, see Eckert Cold Storage, 943 F.Supp. at 1233.

Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608.

Moreover, this Court’s Local Rule 6-144(d) provides:

Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel

or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests

for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or

other documents are looked upon with disfavor.

Here, Ms. Anderson fails to establish she was diligent to assist this Court to create a workable

scheduling order. In fact, Mr. Robinson missed a scheduling conference to prompt this Court’s order

to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on him. Ms. Anderson offers nothing to

demonstrate that she was diligent to seek an extension of the discovery cutoffs. Mr. Robinson’s

declaration reveals that as early as February 2007, he was aware of his medical condition to alert him

of the need to address discovery dates for this action. Mr. Robinson fails to explain why he did not

sooner seek an extension of discovery dates.

Despite Mr. Robinson’s delay, this Court gives Ms. Anderson the benefit of doubt that Mr.

Robinson’s medical condition contributed to his failure to sooner seek extension of the discovery

cutoffs. Although this Court shares the County’s frustration with dilatory and less than forthcoming

counsel, a brief extension of the discovery cutoffs would appear to serve the parties’ interests and

compensate for Mr. Robinson’s medical issues.

Case 1:05-cv-01325-LJO-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/05/07 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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed below, this Court EXTENDS the non-expert discovery cutoff to May

11, 2007 and the expert discovery cutoff to June 1, 2007. All discoverymust be completed no later than

the respective extended cutoffs. This Court does not modify other deadlines set in the May 8, 2006

scheduling order, in particular expert disclosures.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01325-LJO-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/05/07 Page 4 of 4