Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00444-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wesley Collins
Defendant
Matthew Fogel
Plaintiff
Grass Valley Police Department
Defendant
Michael Hooker
Defendant
Jarod Johnson
Defendant
Gary McClaughry
Defendant
Greg McKenzie
Defendant
Jason Perry
Defendant

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW FOGEL

Plaintiff,

v.

GRASS VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT;

GREG MCKENZIE; JASON PERRY;

WESLEY COLLINS; MICHAEL HOOKER;

JAROD JOHNSON; and GARY

MCCLAUGHRY,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-05-00444 DFL KJM

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Plaintiff Fogel requests that the court amend the scheduling

order to allow more time to resolve a discovery dispute involving

records from defendants' personnel files. (Burns Decl. ¶ 13.) 

The motion is denied.

On June 27, 2005, Fogel's attorney informed defendants that

she would file a motion to compel discovery of items she alegedly

requested from them on May 31, 2005. (Ex. C to Opp'n to Plt's

Mot. to Compel.) However, the motion was not filed until October

6, 2005. Under the scheduling order, the discovery cut off was

October 28, 2005. (Order 6/24/05.) Because of the delay in

Case 2:05-cv-00444-DFL -KJM Document 25 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 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

2

filing the motion to compel, the motion could not be resolved and

the discovery taken before the discovery cut off. 

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), a "scheduling order shall not be

modified except by leave of court and upon a showing of good

cause." The "good cause" standard "primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v.

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

"The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

extension." Id. (citations omitted). However, carelessness is

not a grounds for relief. Id. Counsel for plaintiff does not

explain why she waited three months to file the motion to compel. 

The scheduling order warns counsel to schedule discovery early so

that any disputes can be resolved well before the end of the

discovery period. Because plaintiff fails to show that he acted

with diligence in pursuing the disputed discovery, the court

DENIES Fogel's request to modify the scheduling order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/18/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00444-DFL -KJM Document 25 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Case 2:05-cv-00444-DFL -KJM Document 25 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3