Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02414/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02414-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR 

QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

The matter is before the court on the opposed ex parte request by defendants Gay 

Norris, Dennis O’Bryant, Curt Taras, and Steve Testa to continue the trial date and remaining 

pretrial dates. See Ex Parte App., ECF No. 274; Opp’n, ECF No. 275. A trial date is currently set 

for April 25, 2016, and a final pre-trial conference is set for March 31, 2016. ECF No. 196. The 

parties’ pretrial statement is due March 10, 2016. Id. Earlier this year, the court took the parties’ 

cross motions for summary judgment under submission. See Minutes, ECF No. 263; Mots. 

Summ. J., ECF Nos. 217, 218, 219, 220, 222. As the court confirmed at hearing, these motions 

address the entirety of the plaintiffs’ case, and their resolution has the potential to meaningfully 

alter the landscape of this litigation. The court has yet to issue an order, although it is working 

diligently to finalize a decision. 

Case 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN Document 276 Filed 03/08/16 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

A party seeking to amend a pretrial scheduling order must satisfy Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 16(b)’s “good cause” standard. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 608–09 (9th Cir. 1992). This standard focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving 

party, id. at 609, and that party’s reasons for seeking modification, C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. 

Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, on the one hand, more 

diligent defendants would have addressed the need for a continuance earlier in this case. But 

“changes in the court’s calendar sometimes will oblige the judge . . . to modify the scheduling 

order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), advisory comm. notes to 1983 amendments. And the defendants 

rightly point out the common practice of delaying trial preparation until motions for summary 

judgment are resolved. See, e.g., Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., No. 06-03002, 

2007 WL 2705222, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2007) (continuing pretrial dates given “the large 

number of summary judgment motions”). 

The ex parte application is GRANTED IN PART. The final pretrial conference is 

RESET for June 3, 2016. A joint pretrial statement shall be filed by May 20, 2016. The jury trial 

is RESET, for now, to July 11, 2016, with trial briefs due by June 27, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 7, 2016. 

Case 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN Document 276 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2