Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01539/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01539-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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 – FRESNO DIVISION

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SENTRY SELECT INSURANCE

COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1539-LJO-SKO

ORDER ON PARTIES'

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

DATE

(Docket No. 100)

This is the fifth request for a modification to the initial scheduling order dated February 18,

2009, that the parties have requested. On February 9, 2010, the parties were cautioned that any

further stipulation seeking modification of the scheduling order would be viewed with disfavor

absent extraordinary circumstances. On May 25, 2009, the Court again informed the parties, after

granting another request for a modification to the schedule, that "no other extensions of time will

be considered or granted unless truly extraordinary circumstances arise." 

On July 9, 2010, the parties filed this fifth request for another modification to the original

scheduling order. The parties assert that expert witness depositions noticed for July 13, 2010, and

July 15, 2010, are unworkable because one of the experts is "unavailable" and counsel for both

parties state they are unavailable on the noticed dates. 

Unavailability, especially of the parties' counsel, is not an extraordinary circumstance. The

1

Case 1:08-cv-01539-LJO-SKO Document 101 Filed 07/12/10 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

parties and their counsel have known the exact date of the expert witness discovery cut-off for

months. The dates for initial and supplemental disclosure of expert witnesses passed on June 25,

2010, and July 8, 2010, respectively. These disclosure dates were extended four times at the

request of the parties, and the dates were all selected by the parties. If these dates place the

parties and their counsel at a disadvantage in terms of scheduling, it is a disadvantage of their own

creation; the Court has repeatedly cautioned the parties regarding further extensions of time. 

Counsel's apparent failure to adequately confer as to appropriate dates for expert witness depositions

is not an extraordinary circumstance, and the Court will not adjust the deadlines that may impact all

other scheduling dates merely to accommodate the lack of adequate planning by the parties. For

these reasons, the Court is not inclined to once again modify the scheduling order in place. The

parties have until July 16, 2010, to complete expert discovery. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' stipulation for an extension of

time to complete two expert witness depositions in this matter is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01539-LJO-SKO Document 101 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2