Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01785/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01785-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL RILEY, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACCO ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE 

DEADLINES

(Doc. No. 59)

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and Amend Case 

Management Deadlines, filed October 16, 2024. (Doc. No. 59, “Motion”). In the Motion, 

Defendant asks the Court to continue by at least 90 days all trial-related deadlines, including the 

pretrial conference currently scheduled for November 18, 2024, and trial, currently scheduled for 

January 7, 2025. (Id. at 2). Defendant contends that extending these deadlines pending the 

Court’s ruling on Defendant’s potentially dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) 

will conserve the parties’ and Court’s resources. (Id.). Plaintiff opposes the Motion. (Id. at 2:17-

18). For reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and will stay the 

remaining case management deadlines pending the Court’s ruling on the MSJ1.

1 On July 1, 2024, the District Judge assigned the MSJ to the undersigned for preparations of Findings and 

Recommendations. (Doc. No. 49). The MSJ became ripe on July 23, 2024, after Defendant filed a surreply with leave of the Court. (See Doc. No. 58).

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 60 Filed 10/18/24 Page 1 of 2
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

A federal court enjoys “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). For example, magistrate 

judges have broad discretion to stay discovery pending decisions on dispositive motions. Panola 

Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Scroggins v. Air Cargo, 

Inc., 534 F.2d 1124, 1133 (5th Cir. 1976). Here, the Court finds that a stay is warranted in the 

interests of judicial economy and to preserve the Parties’ time and resources. The Court’s ruling 

on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment may obviate the need for trial preparations, and 

therefore the Court finds that all related case management deadlines should be stayed pending the 

Court’s decision on the MSJ.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial and Extend Case Management Deadlines (Doc. 

No. 59) is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein. 

2. All deadlines in the Court’s Case Management Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 31) are 

STAYED pending the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

3. The Court will issue an order on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment in due 

course.

Dated: October 17, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 60 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 2