Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01777/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01777-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Feather River Community College
Defendant
Paul Thein
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PAUL THEIN,

NO. CIV. S-06-1777 FCD GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FEATHER RIVER COMMUNITY

COLLEGE,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant Feather River

Community College’s (“defendant”) motion to modify the pretrial

scheduling order to extend the period for discovery and

correspondingly, to continue all other pretrial deadlines and the

trial date in this matter.1

 Defendant makes the motion due to

its lead counsel Robert Johnson’s medical condition. In January

2007, Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with a serious medical condition

requiring he undergo non-elective invasive surgery. (Johnson

Case 2:06-cv-01777-KJM-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/27/07 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

2 Presently, expert disclosures are due June 18, 2007;

rebuttal expert disclosures are due July 9, 2007; the dispositive

motion deadline is October 12, 2007; the final pretrial

conference is set for December 14, 2007; and trial is set for

February 12, 2008.

2

Decl., filed Feb. 20, 2007, ¶ 5.) Due to the surgery and the

requisite recovery time, Mr. Johnson will be on leave from his

office until April 17, 2007. (Id.) Presently, discovery closes

in this matter on June 4, 2007. (Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Order, filed Nov. 28, 2006.) Defendant requests the court extend

the deadline to September 14, 2007. Defendant requests this date

in order to provide its counsel with sufficient time following

his surgery to complete discovery in this matter but also to

bring this case in close alignment with the related matter of

Jaureguito v. Feather River Community College, Case. No. 06-2687

FCD/GGH, a case involving similar facts and issues, which is also

pending before the undersigned.

Plaintiff Paul Thein (“plaintiff”) does not oppose the

requested extension of the discovery period but objects to any

further continuance of the other pretrial deadlines and the

trial.2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a

pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of

good cause.” The court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it

cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party

seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16,

advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). The “good cause”

standard primarily focuses upon the diligence of the party

Case 2:06-cv-01777-KJM-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/27/07 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

3 The parties have agreed, due to Mr. Johnson’s

condition, to begin taking depositions of witnesses in late April

and May 2007. The parties expect that, at a minimum, three weeks

will be necessary to complete this discovery.

4 On March 12, 2007, the court issued its pretrial

scheduling order for the Jaureguito matter, setting the discovery

cut-off for August 10, 2007. (Docket #14, Civ. 06-2687.)

3

requesting the amendment. “Although the existence or degree of

prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is

upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id.

Here, the court finds that defendant has diligently moved

for the requested relief and that good cause exists to extend the

period for discovery due to defendant’s counsel’s medical

condition. Extension of the discovery period to September 2007

is warranted under the circumstances, considering counsel’s

expected, lengthy recovery period and the extent of the discovery

still remaining,3 as well as the potential benefits in having

this action’s discovery parallel the proceedings in Jaureguito.4

Extension of the discovery period necessitates extension of all

other pretrial and trial dates in order to maintain the court’s

desired intervals between pretrial events and ultimately trial

and considering the court’s trial schedule generally.

As such, the court HEREBY modifies the pretrial scheduling

order of November 28, 2006, setting the relevant dates as

follows:

Discovery Closes: September 14, 2007

Expert Disclosures due: September 28, 2007

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

due: October 29, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-01777-KJM-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/27/07 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

4

Dispositive Motion

Deadline: December 14, 2007

Final Pretrial Conference: February 15, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.

Trial: April 22, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: March 26, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01777-KJM-GGH Document 19 Filed 03/27/07 Page 4 of 4