Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01563-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

----oo0oo----

ERIC HENRIKSON, an individual;

IRIS KIEVERNAGEL, individually

and as administrator of the

estate of JOSEPH KIEVERNAGEL;

PATSY KIEVERNAGEL; JOSEPH

KIEVERNAGEL; and KATHLEEN

HAMILTON and THOMAS BLOUNT,

individually and as successors

in interest to the estate of

KEVIN BLOUNT,

NO. CIV. S-06-1563 WBS DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO MODIFY

SCHEDULING ORDER

TURBOMECA, S.A., a French

corporation; LA SOCIÉTÉ

ANONYME TURBOMECA FRANCÉ, a

French corporation; TURBOMECA

USA, a Texas corporation; and

TURBOMECA ENGINE CORPORATION,

a Texas corporation,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Defendants Turbomeca, S.A., La Société Ananyme

Turbomeca France, Turbomeca USA, and Turbomeca Engine

Corporation’s move to modify the Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Order (“Scheduling Order”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Case 2:06-cv-01563-WBS-DAD Document 124 Filed 04/02/08 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

Procedure 16(b). A motion to modify a scheduling order is

subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which necessitates

a showing of “good cause.” See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Under Rule 16(b), “good cause” requires a party seeking

modification to demonstrate that it assisted the court to create

a workable schedule at the outset of litigation, that the

scheduling order creates deadlines that have become impracticable

notwithstanding its diligent efforts to comply with the schedule,

and that it was diligent in seeking the modification once it

became apparent that extensions were necessary. Jackson v.

Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). “If [the

moving] party is not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson,

975 F.2d at 609 (internal citation omitted). 

There is no dispute that defendants intended to assist

the court in creation of a workable schedule at the outset of

this litigation. Well over a year ago, defendants discharged

their initial Rule 16 obligation by collaborating with plaintiffs

on a Joint Status Report in an attempt to facilitate the court’s

establishment of appropriate guidelines and feasible deadlines. 

(Pls.’ Joint Status Report); Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 607. 

Defendants also demonstrate that, despite diligent

efforts to comply with the Scheduling Order, the deadlines have

become impractical. Because discovery included deposing several

of defendants’ witnesses over thirty-two separate videotaped

sessions--most of which were a full day long and/or required

translation from French to English--designation of the deposition

testimony has become a major undertaking in this action. Given

Case 2:06-cv-01563-WBS-DAD Document 124 Filed 04/02/08 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

1 This modification does not alter any deadlines beyond

the dates of the Final Pretrial Conference and ensuing trial. 

Thus, the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses will remain

May 14, 2008, with rebuttal experts due thirty days later on June

13, 2008.

3

the current state of affairs, the court agrees that it is

unlikely the parties will be sufficiently prepared to meet the

remaining deadlines. See Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 609 (“‘[N]ew and

previously unavailable information’ justifies the requested

[modification].”) (quoting Eckert Cold Storage v. Behl, 943 F.

Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996)). Finally, the court finds

that defendants were sufficiently diligent in seeking the

modification once it became apparent that an extension was

necessary. 

Accordingly, because defendants demonstrate “good

cause” as Rule 16(b) requires, the court will grant their motion

to modify the Scheduling Order.1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to

modify the Scheduling Order be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 

The Final Pretrial Conference is reset for August 11, 2008 at

2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The jury trial is reset for September

9, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5.

DATED: April 1, 2008

 

Case 2:06-cv-01563-WBS-DAD Document 124 Filed 04/02/08 Page 3 of 3