Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02504/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02504-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

STAFFWORKS, INC., a No. 2:05-cv-2504-MCE-GGH

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

COASTAL PACIFIC FOOD 

DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a

California corporation;

WALTER STILPHEN, an

individual; FRANK

GONZALES, SR., an 

individual; and DOES 1-20

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 12, 2007, more than three months after discovery

closed in this matter (and after the Pretrial Scheduling Order

(“PTSO”) had already been extended on two separate occasions),

Plaintiff Staffworks filed the instant ex parte request to modify

the PTSO. According to Staffworks, yet another PTSO modification 

is necessary in order to allow Staffworks to move to compel

responses to interrogatories propounded on June 29, 2006, nearly

a year ago.

Case 2:05-cv-02504-MCE -GGH Document 116 Filed 07/09/07 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

 Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Rule” or 1

“Rules” refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which 1

establishes a timetable to amend pleadings, that Rule’s standards

control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Prior to the final pretrial conference,

a court may modify a status order upon a showing of “good cause.” 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

“Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses

on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment

and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In explaining

this standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated:

[a] district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if

it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of

the party seeking the extension.’ Moreover,

carelessness is not compatible with a finding of

diligence and offers no reason for granting of relief. 

Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the

party opposing the modification might supply additional

reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is

upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking

modification. If that party was not diligent, the

inquiry should end.

Id. (citations omitted).

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02504-MCE -GGH Document 116 Filed 07/09/07 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

Staffworks here has not demonstrated the requisite good

cause. Defendant Gonzales, to whom the interrogatories at issue

were directed, filed his initial responses on August 1, 2006. 

Plaintiff waited more than seven months, until March 16, 2007, to

begin the meet and confer process with respect to additional

responses at a point when discovery had already been closed for

over two weeks. Plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence, or

shown good cause for modification of the PTSO, given that lengthy

delay.

Plaintiff Staffworks’ Ex Parte Request to Modify the PTSO is

accordingly DENIED. Since the PTSO will not be modified to

permit Plaintiff’s proposed motion to compel, it is not necessary

for the Court to rule on Plaintiff’s alternative request that the

motion to compel be set on shortened time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02504-MCE -GGH Document 116 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 3