Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00707-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

1

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

On March 25, 2013, the Court issued an order certifying a class and appointing Plaintiffs 

Angelica Rosales and Margarita Rosales (also known as Lorena Corza) as class representatives. (Doc. 

112). The parties filed a Joint Status Report on April 14, 2013, proposing an amended case schedule. 

(Doc. 114). Plaintiffs request additional discovery be permitted, while Defendant contends the 

discovery period has closed, and the deadlines for filing non-dispositive and dispositive pre-trial 

motions have passed. Id. at 2.

Notably, on March 24, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to amend the 

Scheduling Order, and set deadlines for discovery, non-dispositive motions, and dispositive motions. 

(Doc. 24). The parties were cautioned: “The Court will not again modify case dates that have already 

passed. Moreover, no further amendments to the scheduling order will be granted absent a 

showing of exceptional good cause and only upon a showing that counsel has acted diligently.” 

Id. at 7 (emphasis in original).

MARGARITA ROSALES, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

EL RANCHO FARMS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00707 - AWI - JLT

ORDER AMENDING THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 117 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiffs offer no reason for re-opening the class discovery and merits discovery periods in 

this action, though all discovery concluded in February 3, 2012. (Doc. 24 at 6). Because Plaintiffs 

have not shown what discovery they believe needs to occur, they have not offered any explanation for 

why this discovery was not conducted and completed within the time frame set by the Court and they 

have not demonstrated they acted diligently to meet the discovery deadlines previously, the Court 

declines to re-open discovery a year after its conclusion. 

On the other hand, the Court notes the deadlines for filing non-dispositive and dispositive pretrial motions expired while the parties were awaiting rulings on Plaintiffs’ motions for class 

certification. 

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court now amends the scheduling order as follows:

1. Non-dispositive motions SHALL be filed on or before April 29, 2013, and heard no 

later than May 28, 2013; 

2. Dispositive motions SHALL be filed on or before June 10, 2013, and heard no later 

than July 22, 2013;

3. The pre-trial conference is SET for September 12, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. before Judge 

Ishii; and 

4. The trial date is SET for November 19, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Ishii.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:09-cv-00707-AWI-JLT Document 117 Filed 04/19/13 Page 2 of 2