Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00799/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00799-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TIM HARDY and DARLENE HARDY, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, DEPUTY 

SHERIFF DAVID COOK, TONY’S TOW, 

BONANZA AUTO DISMANTLERS, and 

DOES 1 through 50, 

 Defendants. 

 /

No. 2:07-CV-0799 JAM EFB 

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE 

SCHEDULING ORDER

 The matter before the court is Plaintiffs Tim Hardy and 

Darlene Hardy’s (“Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Application 

(“Application”) to modify the Rule 16 pretrial scheduling order 

(“Scheduling Order”) filed on March 4, 2008. Plaintiffs request 

that the Court modify the Scheduling Order to extend the 

discovery cut-off date from August 15, 2008 to September 15, 

2008 and the deadline for filing dispositive motions from 

September 17, 2008 to September 24, 2008. The Plaintiffs 

request an extension “primarily to allow time to submit requests 

1

Case 2:07-cv-00799-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 08/20/08 Page 1 of 4
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

for admissions, production of documents, and possible additional 

depositions.” The County of El Dorado and Deputy Sheriff David 

Cook oppose the Application. For the reasons set forth below, 

Plaintiffs’ Application is DENIED.1

I. 

A. Legal Standard

 A district court’s pretrial scheduling order shall not be 

modified absent a showing of “good cause.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th 

Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily 

considers 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.’ ” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 

advisory committee’s note (1983 amendment)). The focus of the 

inquiry is on the moving party’s reasons for seeking 

modification, not the prejudice caused to the party opposing the 

modification. Id. If the moving party is not diligent, the 

inquiry ends. Id. 

To demonstrate diligence, the moving party may be required 

to show: (1) that it was diligent in assisting the Court in 

creating a workable Rule 16 scheduling order; (2) that its 

 

1

 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision 

without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h). 

2

Case 2:07-cv-00799-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 4
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

noncompliance with the scheduling order’s deadline occurred or 

will occur notwithstanding 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;” and (3) that it was diligent in seeking amendment 

of the scheduling order. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 

605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Finally, the Ninth Circuit has 

stated that “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of 

diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 

975 F.2d at 609. 

B. Analysis

 Plaintiffs offer two justifications for modifying the 

Scheduling Order.2 First, Plaintiffs contend that their counsel 

has been unable to work full-time since May 2008 due to illness 

and chronic pain. Second, Plaintiffs contend that their counsel 

has been unable to complete discovery due to obligations in 

another case. Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to 

modify the Scheduling Order. Specifically, Plaintiffs have 

failed to demonstrate diligence in complying with the Scheduling 

Order’s deadlines or in seeking to amend the Scheduling Order 

once it became apparent that they could not comply with the 

 

2

 Plaintiffs Application does not address Rule 16(b)’s “good 

cause” requirement. Instead, Plaintiffs request that the Court 

modify the Scheduling Order pursuant to Local Rule 6-144.

3

Case 2:07-cv-00799-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 08/20/08 Page 3 of 4
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. For instance, Plaintiffs’ Application is devoid of a 

persuasive explanation as to why the referenced discovery was 

not conducted earlier.3 Nor does the Application adequately 

explain why an extension of time was not sought earlier. 

Indeed, requesting the Court to modify the Scheduling Order to 

extend the discovery cut-off date three days before the deadline 

does not constitute diligence. Accordingly, the Court denies 

Plaintiffs’ Application to modify the Scheduling Order.

II. 

 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Application is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 20, 2008 

 

3

 While Plaintiffs claim that their counsel was unable to 

work full-time since May 2008, they admit that he tried a case 

from June 9, 2008 to June 27, 2008. 

4

Case 2:07-cv-00799-JAM-EFB Document 89 Filed 08/20/08 Page 4 of 4