Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01761/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01761-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 04CV1761 LAB (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS PLAYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.04CV1761 LAB (WMc)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

DESIGNATE EXPERT WITNESSES

AND FOR DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT

WITNESS REPORTS

On April 11, 2007, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an extension of time beyond that

set forth in the Court’s April 2, 2007 Scheduling Order to exchange expert witness information. [Doc.

No. 80.]

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), “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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Good cause exists if the pretrial schedule “cannot reasonably be

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975

F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987); 6A

Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990)); see also

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Advisory Committee Notes (1983 Amendment).

Case 3:04-cv-01761-LAB-WMC Document 83 Filed 04/13/07 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 04CV1761 LAB (WMc)

Defendants have failed to establish good cause. While case authority provides for good cause if

a schedule cannot reasonably be met, Defendants’ counsel does not state anywhere in his declaration

that he is unable to meet the upcoming deadlines set forth in the Court’s April 2, 2007 Scheduling

Order. Defendants’ council only cites cost efficiency as the sole reason for his extension request. See

April 11, 2007 Declaration of Stephen Aronis, 2:11-13. Accordingly, Defendants’ Ex Parte Application is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2007

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Copy to:

HONORABLE LARRY A. BURNS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD 

PETITIONER PRO SE

Case 3:04-cv-01761-LAB-WMC Document 83 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2