Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-00201/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-00201-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No.: 5:11-cv-00201-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WILLIAM LUKOV,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHINDLER ELEVATOR 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:11-cv-00201-EJD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO AMEND THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER

On May 18, 2015, this court issued a pretrial order which, inter alia, provided a schedule 

for the parties to conduct limited supplemental discovery subsequent to a remand from the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. See Docket Item No. 106. The extent and subject matter of the limited 

supplemental discovery, as well as the corresponding deadlines, were adopted from a proposal 

made by the parties in a Joint Case Management Statement. See Docket Item No. 105. Ostensibly

due to the court’s ruling on a motion in limine, Defendant now seeks to “to produce a further

supplemental expert report or reports from vocational rehabilitation specialist Carla Kelley and/or 

economist Erik Volk and depose Ms. Ostrofe about the valuation of any potential mitigation based 

on Plaintiff’s decision to abandon work as an elevator repair mechanic and pursue work as an 

acupuncturist.” See Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement, Docket Item No. 120, at 15:23-27.

Because the deadlines for the completion of both regular and supplemental discovery have 

expired, Defendant’s request is properly construed as a motion to amend the scheduling order. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a party seeking to amend a scheduling order must 

demonstrate sufficient “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified 

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). Diligence on the part of the moving party is 

Case 5:11-cv-00201-EJD Document 156 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:11-cv-00201-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER

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

Northern District of California

the focus of the inquiry. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (1992). 

“[N]ot only must parties participate from the outset in creating a workable Rule 16 scheduling 

order but they must also 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). 

Here, Defendant has not established good cause to amend the scheduling order to allow for 

further discovery. Defendant did not plausibly explain why the further discovery sought could not 

have been obtained earlier - during either the initial or supplemental discovery phase - or why it 

waited until the eve of the Final Pretrial Conference to request permission to conduct further 

discovery. To the extent Defendant believes it needed a ruling on its motion in limine before it 

could engage in the process, the court disagrees that the decision to postpone case investigation 

and preparation can be reconciled with a finding of diligence.

Accordingly, Defendant’s request is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-00201-EJD Document 156 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 2