Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01150-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

Before the Court is the stipulation of counsel to amend the scheduling order (Doc. 15). 

(Doc. 29) Counsel seek to modify all case schedule dates except the trial date. (Doc. 29 at 2) The 

reason set forth for this amendment is that “there is considerable discovery outstanding . . . to 

conduct” and counsel does not believe it can be finished before the discovery cut-off on September 

3, 2013. Id. at 3.

According to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3), a case schedule may be modified only for good 

cause and only with the judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court explained,

. . . Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns the diligence of the 

party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule 

“if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) . . 

.[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 

modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

VICTORIA YOUNGBLOOD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01150 AWI JLT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION 

TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 29)

Case 1:12-cv-01150-JLT Document 30 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 3
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

Parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to that schedule throughout the subsequent course of the 

litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999); see Marcum v. 

Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 254 (S.D. W.Va. 1995). In part, the “good cause” standard requires the 

parties to demonstrate that “noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, 

notwithstanding her diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could 

not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling conference 

. . .” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608, emphasis added.

The scheduling order advised the parties that a stipulation to amend the scheduling order, 

unsupported by good cause, would not be sufficient. (Doc. 15 at 7) The order reads, 

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified 

absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by 

stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be 

considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and 

where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting 

the relief requested.

(Id., emphasis in the original) Nevertheless, the stipulation does not indicate the discovery which 

has been completed or describe that which remains or—most importantly—why this discovery has 

not been completed before now. Likewise, there is no information provided as to why the 

remaining discovery cannot be completed in the 60-plus days before the deadline. The parties 

were obligated to provide a sufficient factual basis to allow the Court to make a reasoned 

determination.

Moreover, though the parties do not propose a change in the trial date, the changes in the 

case schedule they seek would necessitate a continuance of the trial. For example, the filing date 

for the dispositive motion is a mere 30 days before the pretrial conference. Given his extensive 

caseload, Judge Ishii cannot decide this motion in the time allotted. Thus, though the Court will 

afford the parties addition discovery time, they are forewarned that the amended discovery 

deadline date provided below may preclude them from filing non-dispositive motions related to 

discovery disputes. Likewise, absolutely no further amendments to the case schedule will be 

entertained without a showing of exceptional good cause.

///

Case 1:12-cv-01150-JLT Document 30 Filed 06/26/13 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. All discovery, non expert and expert, SHALL be completed no later than November 

18, 2013;

2. The parties SHALL disclose all expert witnesses, in writing, on or before 

September 27, 2013, and to disclose all rebuttal experts on or before October 11, 2013.

2. No other amendments to the case schedule are authorized.

Absolutely no further amendments to the case schedule will be entertained without a 

showing of exceptional good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01150-JLT Document 30 Filed 06/26/13 Page 3 of 3