Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00105-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

WILLIAM LEE JOHNSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARLETON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00105-JLT-SAB

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 

MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING

ORDER IN PART AND DENYING 

REQUEST TO MODIFY DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION FILING DEADLINE

(ECF No. 98)

This action was filed on January 24, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On July 10, 2019, a scheduling 

order issued. (ECF No. 44.) The scheduling order deadlines have been modified multiple times 

in this action, most recently on August 24, 2022. (ECF Nos. 63, 67, 75, 77, 82, 88, 96.) 

Currently, the nonexpert discovery deadline is December 22, 2022; the expert disclosure 

deadline is January 19, 2023; the supplemental expert disclosure deadline is February 16, 2023; 

the expert discovery deadline is April 6, 2023; the dispositive motion filing deadline is June 1, 

2023; and a pretrial conference is set for July 31, 2023. (ECF No. 96.)1 On December 2, 2022, 

the parties filed a stipulated motion to further modify the scheduling order in this action. (ECF 

No. 98.) The parties proffer many of the same continuing reasons previously presented in this 

1

 In the August 24, 2022 order, the Court noted the following regarding the proximity of the proposed dispositive 

motion filing deadline and the pretrial conference, the latter of which the parties had not requested to continue: 

“While the dispositive motion deadline is close to the current pretrial conference date, the Court shall keep the 

current pretrial conference date given there is no trial date currently set, and the need for continuing such conference 

can be addressed if dispositive motions are filed or if they are under consideration.” (ECF No. 96 at 2.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 99 Filed 12/06/22 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

action, most pertinent now being additional depositions. 

While the Court finds somewhat sufficient good cause to grant the requested extensions 

of the discovery deadlines, the Court declines to adjust the dispositive motion filing deadline. 

The Court will grant the requested continuances of the discovery deadlines given the complexity 

of the case and discovery, the entrance of new counsel on behalf of some defendants in August 

of 2022, and given the parties did complete some of the discovery that was presented as 

necessary in the previous stipulation, such as the depositions of Ms. Bossum and Mr. Wolf. (See

ECF Nos. 95 at 6, 98 at 7.) However, the parties again proffer the need to complete depositions 

of Momentum employee Shannon Michaels, the PMK’s of Momentum, Pape, and the Cobham 

Defendants, as well as a potential need to depose the PMK of NHTSA. (ECF No. 98 at 7-8.) 

The parties previously proffered that they at least already anticipated the taking of these 

depositions as part of the reason for the previous extension of the scheduling order deadlines. 

(ECF No. 95 at 6-7.) The parties proffer no explanation as to why these depositions were not 

pursued in the interim period despite being aware of the potential need to complete such 

depositions previously.

While the parties request an extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline, the 

parties do not request an extension of the current pretrial conference date, and expressly state 

there is good cause to extend all deadlines, “excluding the July 31, 2023 Pre-trial setting 

conference.” (ECF No. 98 at 8.) Based on the overlapping reasons in the concurrent stipulations 

to modify the scheduling order without an explanation as to why the parties were not diligent in 

pursuing such deposition in the interim period, the Court declines to extend the dispositive 

motion filing deadline, so that it may remain in its current posture in relation to the current 

pretrial conference date, which the parties have not requested to adjust. 

The dispositive motion filing deadline is currently set for June 1, 2023. Thus, there will 

still be, albeit limited, some time between the dispositive motion deadline and the proposed 

expert discovery cutoff date of May 22, 2023. Further, there is significant time between the 

proposed April 2, 2023 supplemental expert disclosure deadline, and the proposed May 22, 2023 

expert discovery deadline, such that the parties may agree to an earlier expert discovery deadline 

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 99 Filed 12/06/22 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

in order to complete expert discovery with sufficient time to complete dispositive motions by 

June 1, 2023. The Court will not foreclose a potential future adjustment of the dispositive 

motion filing deadline and the pretrial conference by the Court, perhaps when all nonexpert 

discovery is in fact complete and the parties have in fact scheduled or attended the proffered 

mediation that the parties indicate they may schedule for April of 2023, however, at this juncture 

declines to do so, based on the filed stipulation and the current posture of the case. 

Accordingly, pursuant to the parties’ agreement and finding good cause, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the scheduling 

order is modified as follows:

1. Nonexpert Discovery Deadline: February 6, 2023;

2. Expert Disclosure Deadline: March 6, 2023;

3. Supplemental Expert Disclosure Deadline: April 2, 2023; and

4. Expert Discovery Deadline: May 22, 2023. 

All other dates and aspects of the scheduling order, as previously modified, including the June 1, 

2023 dispositive motion filing deadline, shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00105-SAB Document 99 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 3