Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01708/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01708-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA H. DEBAUN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIOMET INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01708-NONE-SAB

ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION 

TO STAY PROCEEDINGS TO 

FACILITATE SETTLEMENT

(ECF No. 154)

Deadline: March 4, 2020

This matter was transferred to this Court on December 17, 2018. (ECF No. 133.) On 

March 6, 2019, the scheduling order issued pretrial and trial dates. (ECF No. 142.) On February 

14, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to stay these proceedings to facilitate settlement. In the 

stipulation, the parties state that they are close to settling this matter and would like to stay the 

filing of pretrial motions. If the court declines to stay the proceedings, the parties seek a six 

month extension of the expert discovery and motion deadlines to August 14, 2020. The parties 

also request to extend the pretrial conference and trial dates by six months 

Pursuant to the amended pretrial order, expert discovery in this action closed on January 

24, 2020.1 (ECF No. 146.) The March 6, 2019 scheduling order advised the parties that “due to 

the impacted nature of civil cases on the district judges in the Eastern District of 

 

1 The Court notes that the September 11, 2019 order amending the scheduling order incorrectly set the date as 

January 24, 2019. 

Case 1:18-cv-01708-DAD-SAB Document 155 Filed 02/18/20 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

California, Fresno Division, that stipulations to continue set dates are disfavored and will 

not be granted absent good cause.” (ECF No. 142 at 7 (emphasis in original).) Further the 

September 11, 2019 and November 18, 2019 amended scheduling orders informed the parties 

that no further modifications of the scheduling order would be granted absent a showing of good 

cause. (ECF Nos. 144, 146.) 

The Rule 16 scheduling order and the timetable it establishes are binding and cannot be 

extended by party stipulation without the court’s approval. Scheduling Conferences and Orders, 

6A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1522.1 (3d ed.) Amendment of a scheduling order requires a 

showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In determining if good cause exists, the court is 

to consider the diligence of the party seeking amendment and the pretrial schedule may be 

modified if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Where the party seeking to amend the scheduling order fails to show due diligence the 

inquiry should end and the court should not grant the motion to modify. Zivkovic v. Southern 

California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). To allow a modification of the 

scheduling order without good cause would render scheduling orders essentially meaningless, 

and directly interferes with courts’ attempts to manage their dockets and with the standard course 

of litigation in actions. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of 

paper, idly entered . . . .” (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

Here, this action has been proceeding since 2015, and discovery in this court opened on 

March 19, 2019, with two stipulations for extensions of the deadlines being granted. The pretrial 

conference is set for April 8, 2020, with a jury trial set to commence on June 2, 2020. (ECF No. 

142.) On February 3, 2020, a Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the 

Eastern District of California issued informing the parties that trial are currently set through the 

end of 2021 and no new trials would be set. Therefore, if the trial in this action is vacated it is 

unlikely that a trial in this action would proceed prior to 2022. 

The parties filed their stipulation on the deadline for dispositive motions to be filed and 

have failed to show good cause to reopen the deadlines that have expired prior to the stipulation 

Case 1:18-cv-01708-DAD-SAB Document 155 Filed 02/18/20 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

being filed. Accordingly, the Court shall grant a brief extension of time for the parties to file 

dispositive motions. The stipulation shall be otherwise denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation to stay the 

proceedings to facilitate settlement is GRANTED IN PART and the deadline to file dispositive 

motions is extended to March 4, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01708-DAD-SAB Document 155 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 3