Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00029/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00029-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ADT LLC
Defendant
Edher Flores
Plaintiff

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

Counsel seek an order amending the case schedule. (Doc. 12) They explain that they have 

been delayed in completing discovery, apparently, due to the fact that the defendant’s attorney has 

been in trial and because they wish to “possibly attend mediation.” Id. at 3. This, unfortunately, does 

not demonstrate good cause to extend the case deadlines.

Districts courts must enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, 

amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). In addition, 

scheduling orders may “modify the timing of disclosures” and “modify the extent of discovery.” Id. 

Once entered by a court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies 

it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). As such, a scheduling order 

is “the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). 

Scheduling orders are “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 

EDHER FLORES, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ADT LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00029 AWI JLT

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND 

THE CASE SCHEDULE

(Doc. 12)

Case 1:16-cv-00029-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 3
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

disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. 

Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Good cause must be shown for modification of the 

scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Ninth Circuit explained:

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. 

Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no 

reason for a grant of relief. Although the existence of a 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 modification. If that 

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, parties must 

“diligently attempt to adhere to the schedule throughout the course of the litigation.” Jackson v. 

Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). 

As noted above, counsel have made no showing that they have acted diligently. To the 

contrary, though the plaintiff propounded written discovery timely, he allowed the defense to fail to

respond for more than three months rather than seeking the Court’s intervention.

1

There is no 

showing the defendant has conducted any discovery. Also, though they seek an extension of the 

deadline to amend the pleadings, this deadline has already passed. Furthermore, the Court cannot 

accept that the parties did not contemplate the idea of mediation before the Court scheduled the case. 

Even if this is possible, they do not commit, even now, to participating in mediation; they 

contemplate only the possibility of doing so.

To show diligence, counsel should have explained why they have not completed the needed 

discovery or why they could not have done so. They should have explained why they cannot 

complete the discovery within the deadlines set by the Court. Having failed to state more than, in 

essence, a desire not to conduct discovery at this time, they have failed to make even a minimal 

showing to justify amendment of the case schedule. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

///

///

///

 

1 On the other hand, it is patently unreasonable for an attorney to refuse to respond to discovery for three months. 

Case 1:16-cv-00029-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

Thus, the stipulation to amend the case schedule is DENIED. Counsel are urged in the 

strongest terms to direct their attention to this case and to redouble their efforts toward completing 

discovery within the deadlines set by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00029-AWI-JLT Document 13 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 3