Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00086-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD L. MEISSNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00086-KES-BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO MODIFY 

THE SCHEDULING ORDER

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 31, 2025 

MOTION HEARING

(Doc. 28)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Richard L. Meissner’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to 

Modify the Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28.) Defendants Republic Services, Inc. and Allied 

Waste Services of North America, LLC (“Defendants”) filed a notice of non-opposition, though 

requested modification of the Scheduling Order to extend the dispositive motion filing deadline 

from June 30, 2025 to September 30, 2025. (Docs. 30, 31.) The Court finds the motion 

suitable for decision without the need for oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing on the 

motion currently set for January 31, 2025, is HEREBY VACATED, and the matter is submitted 

on the record. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

Having considered the briefing as well as the entire record in this case, Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Modify the Scheduling Order (Doc. 28) will be GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Case 1:24-cv-00086-KES-BAM Document 32 Filed 01/16/25 Page 1 of 5
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

Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). 

I. BACKGROUND

This is an age and medical condition discrimination, harassment, and wrongful 

termination of employment action pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing 

Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Doc. 1-1.) The matter was removed from Fresno County 

Superior Court on January 18, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On May 2, 2024, the Court held a Scheduling 

Conference with the parties. (Doc. 8.) On May 2, 2024, the Court issued a Scheduling 

Conference Order, which set the following relevant deadlines:

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: March 2, 2025

Expert Disclosure: April 4, 2025

Supplemental Expert Disclosure: May 2, 2025

Expert Discovery Deadline: June 6, 2025

Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline: June 30, 2025

Pretrial Conference: November 17, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.

Jury Trial (5 days) February 10, 2026, 9:00 a.m.

(Doc. 9.) In the Scheduling Order, the Court advised the parties that if they determined at any 

time that the schedule could not be met, they must notify the Court immediately so that 

adjustments could be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference. (Doc. 9 

at 6.) The Court also provided the following warning:

The dates set in this Order are considered to be 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.) The Court has not otherwise modified the Scheduling Order. During a discovery 

dispute conference on December 19, 2024, the Court declined to rule on Plaintiff's oral 

motion for an extension of the discovery cutoff in the absence of briefing by all parties 

and a demonstrated showing of diligence. (Doc. 22.)

On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to modify the Court’s 

scheduling order. (Doc. 28.) On January 10, 2025, Defendants filed their statement of 

non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Docs. 30, 31.) Plaintiff requests modification of 

Case 1:24-cv-00086-KES-BAM Document 32 Filed 01/16/25 Page 2 of 5
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

the scheduling order as follows (Doc. 28 at 1):

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: June 1, 2025

Expert Disclosure: July 1, 2025

Supplemental Expert Disclosure: August 1, 2025

Expert Discovery Deadline: September 1, 2025

Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline: October 1, 2025

II. LEGAL STANDARD

District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, 

amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Once 

entered, 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), and are “the heart 

of case management,” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986).

Indeed, 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 (quoting Gestetner 

Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Accordingly, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good 

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Green Aire for Air 

Conditioning W.L.L. v. Salem, No. 1:18-cv-00873-LJO-SKO, 2020 WL 58279, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 6, 2020.) (“Requests to modify a scheduling order are governed by Rule 16(b)(4) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court may modify a scheduling order 

‘only for good cause.’”). As the Ninth Circuit has explained,

In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts in both the federal and state system 

routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and 

resolution of cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken 

seriously by the parties, and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the 

deadlines. Parties must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply 

strictly with the scheduling and other orders, and that failure to do so may properly 

support severe sanctions and exclusions of evidence.

Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005).

Good cause requires a showing of due diligence. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; Sprague v. 

Fin. Credit Network, Inc., NO. 1:18-cv-00035-SAB, 2018 WL 4616688, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 

Case 1:24-cv-00086-KES-BAM Document 32 Filed 01/16/25 Page 3 of 5
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

25, 2018) (“[Good cause] requires the party to show that despite due diligence the scheduled 

deadline could not be met.”)). The party seeking to modify a scheduling order bears the 

burden of demonstrating good cause. Handel v. Rhoe, No. 14-cv-1930-BAS(JMA), 2015 WL 

6127271, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015) (citing Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 

1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 974 F.2d at 608-609.). The Court may modify the scheduling 

order “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” 

Johnson, 974 F.2d at 609. If the party was not diligent, then the inquiry should end. Id. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to modify the Scheduling Order for the limited purpose of extending 

discovery deadlines and the dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. 28.) In his moving papers, 

Plaintiff states that he acted diligently, but Defendants’ deficient discovery responses, the 

parties’ ongoing discovery disputes, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s other obligations have made it 

impossible for Plaintiff to meet the discovery deadlines. (Doc. 28 at 2-3, Doc. 28-2 at 5-6, 

Doc. 28-3 ¶¶ 3-25.) Plaintiff further notes that, though Plaintiff has noticed depositions for 

relevant supervisors, due to the delays in production, Plaintiff will be unable to complete 

meaningful discovery by the non-expert discovery cutoff of March 2, 2025. (Doc. 28 at 3, 

Doc. 28-3 ¶¶ 17-19, 23, 25.)

The dispositive inquiry is whether Plaintiff was diligent in seeking a modification. 

Johnson, 974 F.2d at 609. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for 

modification of the Scheduling Order. Plaintiff filed the instant motion well before the March 

2, 2025 non-expert discovery deadline once it became clear that extension of discovery 

deadlines was necessary and has demonstrated diligence in discovery efforts. (See Doc. 22, 

Doc. 27, Doc. 28 at 2-3, Doc. 28-2 at 5-6, Doc. 28-3 ¶¶ 3-25.) Additionally, there is no 

evidence that amendment of the scheduling order will prejudice Defendants, as they filed a 

notice of non-opposition in which they note that they “do not oppose the Motion, but 

Defendants do request that the current dispositive motion filing deadline of June 30, 2025 be 

extended to September 30, 2025.” (Doc. 30 at 2.) Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s 

motion to modify the scheduling order. The Court will further modify the pretrial conference 

Case 1:24-cv-00086-KES-BAM Document 32 Filed 01/16/25 Page 4 of 5
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

5

and trial dates in the scheduling conference order to ensure that there is adequate time to 

resolve any dispositive motions.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order (Doc. 28) is 

GRANTED, with the scheduling conference order being modified as follows:

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline: June 2, 2025

Expert Disclosure: July 1, 2025

Supplemental Expert Disclosure: August 1, 2025

Expert Discovery Deadline: September 1, 2025

Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline: October 1, 2025

Pretrial Conference: March 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. 

in Courtroom 6 (KES)

Jury Trial (5 days): May 12, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. 

in Courtroom 6 (KES)

The parties are advised that further requests for continuances will be looked upon with 

disfavor and no further extensions or modifications of the deadlines in this case will be granted 

absent a demonstrated showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00086-KES-BAM Document 32 Filed 01/16/25 Page 5 of 5