Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00738/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00738-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Linda De Santos
Plaintiff
Jaco Oil Company
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Before the Court is the stipulation of counsel to extend the deadlines related to nonexpert and 

expert discovery. (Doc. 20) Counsel report that they engaged in a failed mediation but would like to 

continue discussing settlement without the need to make ongoing discovery efforts. Id. at 2. Thus, 

they request a 30-day extension on the deadlines. Id. at 2-3.

Counsel are reminded that, generally, the desire to conduct settlement negotioations is not 

considered good cause to amend the case schedule in that desire to make these efforts are reasonably 

anticipated at the time of the making of the case schedule. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 

608 (E.D. Cal. 1999) [Case schedules may be amended based upon “the development of matters which 

could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling 

conference.”]

On the other hand, Plaitniff offers no explanation why she cannot seek the requested 

amendment within the current deadlines. (Doc. 20 at 2) Indeed, seemingly, she has in her possession 

LINDA DE SANTOS, on behalf of herself and 

all other similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JACO OIL COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-CV-00738 -JLT

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE

(Doc. 20)

Case 1:14-cv-00738-JLT Document 22 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 2
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

the factual predicate for the amendment. Id. Thus, the Court is unclear why this amendment should 

wait until just before the close of discovery. Importantly, the Court has granted an extension of time to 

allow the amendment already. (Doc. 15) Thus, this request is DENIED.

However, because the proposed amendment will not impact the class certification motion, the

Court will GRANT the request IN PART:

1. The request to amend the case schedule is GRANTED as follows: 

A. All nonexpert and expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than 6/30/15;

B. All experts SHALL be disclosed no later than 5/15/15 and any rebuttal experts 

disclosed no later than 6/3/15;

C. Any nondispositive motions related to class discovery SHALL be filed no later 

than 7/8/15 and heard no later than 8/5/15.

2. The request to amend the case schedule to extend the deadline to file amendments is 

DENIED;

3. No further amendments, including amendments related to the anticipated class 

certification motion, are authorized.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00738-JLT Document 22 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 2