Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01745-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL PALOMARES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ARVIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION DENYING 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 30)

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request for a four-month extension in all 

discovery, pretrial motion and trial dates. (Doc. 30). The Court previously granted a two-month 

extension of all case management dates following the parties’ earlier request for a six-month 

extension. (Doc. 26). Thus, the parties’ pending stipulation for order represents a second request 

for the same four-month period the Court previously declined to grant due to the parties’ failure 

to demonstrate good cause.

The bases advanced in support of the request for extension are that the parties began but 

have been unable to complete for various reasons depositions of Plaintiff and three non-party 

witnesses (Jose Negrete, Phillip Munoz and Phillip Mutz), and because counsel for Plaintiff is 

petitioning the Court to appoint a guardian ad litem before providing verifications to his 

previously served, unverified responses to Defendants’ interrogatories.

The Court acknowledges the challenges the parties reportedly have confronted in 

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 32 Filed 03/17/23 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

connection with completing depositions; however, the Court is unable to find good cause to grant 

any further extensions of discovery deadlines in light of counsels’ seeming inability or 

unwillingness to undertake reasonable efforts to contact the remaining deponents to be deposed 

and offer the Court a tentative schedule for the remaining depositions.

Specifically, according to the Declaration of Mr. Hamilton filed in support of the 

stipulated request for extension, the parties have “not yet settled” on a date to re-depose Plaintiff 

more than six weeks after his deposition was interrupted, and the parties similarly have not 

resolved continued dates for desired depositions of Mr. Negrete and Mr. Mutz. But the parties 

already raised Plaintiff’s interrupted deposition as a basis for discovery extension in their last

request for modification of the case management dates (Doc. 25) and it does not appear the 

parties are any closer more than one month later to re-scheduling the deposition. This does not 

constitute good cause to grant the requested extensions – particularly where the parties reported to 

the Court more than four months ago that they were then scheduling depositions and that “there 

were no impediments that would interfere with the [timely] completion of discovery.” (Doc. 22).

As the Court previously advised the parties when granting in part their earlier request for 

an extension of the case management dates, once entered by the court, a scheduling order 

“controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling 

orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). As such, a scheduling order is “the heart of case 

management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). A scheduling order 

is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel 

without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), a case schedule 

may be modified only for good cause and only with the judge’s consent. If a party is unable to 

reasonably meet a deadline despite acting diligently, the scheduling order may be modified. Id. at

609. If, however, the party “‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify 

should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

For the forgoing reasons, the parties’ request for a further extension of all case 

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 32 Filed 03/17/23 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

management dates is DENIED. The Court discourages counsel from seeking any further 

extensions without first meeting and conferring, coordinating with deponents, scheduling 

depositions within a reasonable timeframe and providing the Court with a proposed, agreed-upon 

schedule for the timely completion of discovery and reasonable assurances that counsel will 

adhere to the schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2023 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB Document 32 Filed 03/17/23 Page 3 of 3