Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01745-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL PALOMARES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ARVIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION 

AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER AS 

MODIFIED

(Doc. 25)

On July 1, 2022, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in this case consistent with the 

parties’ jointly requested timeline to complete discovery, including provision for eight months to 

complete fact discovery, nine months to complete expert discovery and ten months to file 

dispositive motions. (Docs. 16, 17) Among other things, the Scheduling Order sets forth:

The dates set in this order are firm and will not be modified absent a showing of 

good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations 

extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are 

accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached 

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

(Id. at 6) (emphasis in original).

On October 25, 2022, the parties filed a Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report in 

which they represented that they anticipated no impediments to timely completing discovery and 

were engaged in scheduling depositions. (Doc. 22). As a result, the Court vacated the middiscovery status hearing. (Doc. 23)

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 26 Filed 02/14/23 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

Pending before the Court now is the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order for 

Modifying the Scheduling Order, filed February 10, 2023, in which the parties seek a six-month 

extension in all discovery, pretrial motion and trial dates. (Doc. 25). The Stipulation was filed 

without any accompanying affidavit or declaration, contrary to the plain terms of the Scheduling 

Order (discussed above). In their unsworn representations, counsel represent that the requested 

extension is warranted because (1) a witness became unavailable recently for her deposition

scheduled for January 27, 2023, and (2) “additional[, unspecified] necessary and specific written 

and deposition discovery is required in order to adequately prepare this matter for trial.”

Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the 

court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case 

management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 

1992). As such, a scheduling order is “the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor 

Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). A scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause and 

only with the judge’s consent. If a party is unable to reasonably meet a deadline despite acting 

diligently, the scheduling order may be modified. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If, however, the 

party “‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” 

Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d 

at 609).

The parties’ request for a six-month extension of all case management dates is wholly 

unsupported by the meager, unsworn representations advanced in the stipulation. As for the 

recent unavailability of a witness to appear for deposition, the parties make no effort to explain 

why, for instance, the witness’s deposition could not be rescheduled during the month of 

February while fact discovery under the current schedule is open. As for the unspecified

reference in the stipulation that additional written discovery is necessary, that representation is 

inconsistent with the parties’ joint report filed in advance of the mid-discovery status conference 

in which they stated no additional written discovery was necessary. The parties make no showing 

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 26 Filed 02/14/23 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

in their stipulation that they have acted with reasonable diligence to complete discovery within 

the specified period.

Under the circumstances, the Court grants a two-month extension of all discovery, 

pretrial motion and trial dates.

Accordingly, based on the parties’ representations in the stipulation and for good cause 

shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Order be amended as follows:

Discovery Event Old Deadline Amended Deadline

Fact Discovery Cut-Off March 1, 2023 May 5, 2023

Expert Witness Disclosure March 8, 2023 May 12, 2023

Rebuttal Expert Witness 

Disclosure

March 22, 2023 May 26, 2023

Expert Discovery Cut-Off April 7, 2023 June 9, 2023

Dispositive Motion Cut-Off April 28, 2023 June 30, 2023

Dispositive Motion Hearing 

Deadline

June 9, 2023 August 15, 2023, 8:30 a.m.

Pretrial Conference August 28, 2023 October 16, 2023, 1:30 p.m.

Trial October 24, 2023 December 12, 2023, 8:30 a.m.

Further requests for discovery, motion or trial extensions are strongly discouraged and no 

requests for extension will be granted without a showing of diligence by the parties and good 

cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 26 Filed 02/14/23 Page 3 of 3