Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00735/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00735-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 

CHUKWUEMEKA NDULUE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FREMONT-RIDEOUT HEALTH 

GROUP, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-00735-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

The parties recently filed a stipulation and request to continue all dates in this case. 

ECF No. 23. A scheduling order may only be changed with the court’s consent and for good 

cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). When litigants request changes to a scheduling order, the court’s 

inquiry focuses on their diligent efforts to comply. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). On occasion, courts in this district have looked to a more 

detailed three-part test: a movant may establish good cause by showing (1) it diligently assisted 

with creation of the Rule 16 order, (2) circumstances beyond its control and anticipation 

prevented compliance with the order, and (3) after it became apparent a new schedule was 

needed, the party promptly sought relief. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. 

Cal. 1999). 

Case 2:14-cv-00735-KJM-EFB Document 24 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

The parties’ request does not meet this standard. They explain that they plan to 

depose more than forty witnesses and anticipate discovery motions. Their request does not 

explain why they believe this number of depositions is necessary and does not outline their 

anticipated discovery disputes. They do not explain why the need for more depositions and more 

time was discovered only recently. Their request to modify the scheduling order is denied, but 

may be renewed if accompanied by a much clearer showing of good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 16, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-00735-KJM-EFB Document 24 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 2