Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00391/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00391-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Allen Frazier
Defendant
Beverly J. Hancock
Defendant
Leland W. Hancock
Defendant
Leon Patten
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEON PATTEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LELAND W. HANCOCK, BEVERLY J. 

HANCOCK, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN 

FRAZIER, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-391-EFB 

ORDER 

 The court set a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for August 31, 2016, and directed 

the parties to file, no later than 14 days prior to the conference, a joint status report addressing 

various scheduling matters outlined in the court’s February 23, 2016 order.1 ECF No. 44; see 

ECF No. 39. 

 The parties timely filed a joint report but it does not address any of the scheduling matters 

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (b)(3) and the court’s prior order directing the filing of a joint 

status report. ECF No. 45. Instead, their report requests that the scheduling conference be 

continued 60 days to allow the parties to discuss settlement options, conduct discovery, and 

evaluate dispositive motions. Id. at 2. It further states that “if the matter is not settled via 

negotiations or a dispositive motion, parties will likely ask the court to set the matter for trial.” 

 1

 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties’ consent. ECF No. 43; see 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Case 2:16-cv-00391-EFB Document 46 Filed 08/24/16 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 

27 

28 

2

 While the court appreciates the parties’ efforts to resolve the case, the joint report in 

essence request a further stay of the case.2 Yet there is neither a motion for stay nor a stipulation 

and order for a stay that sets forth in detail the reasons why an additional 60 days is necessary to 

decide whether to settle this case. Further, the parties have not addressed the requirement of Rule 

26(f) that they submit a written discovery plan. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2)-(3). Rule 16 requires the 

court to issue a scheduling order after receiving the parties’ discovery plan or after consulting 

with the parties at a scheduling conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1). 

 The court cannot simply ignore Rule 16. Because the parties have not submitted a 

stipulation and order describing the good cause which warrants yet another stay of 60 days to 

explore settlement, the implied request in the joint report for a stay must be denied. However, 

with the failure of the parties to include in their joint status report a discovery plan or any of the 

other Rule 16 scheduling matters detailed in the court’s February 23, 2016 order, the scheduling 

conference must nonetheless be continued to facilitate the filing of a status report in compliance 

with the court’s orders and Rule 16(b)(2). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The parties’ request for a 60-day continuance of the scheduling conference (ECF No. 

45) is denied; 

 2. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference is continued to September 14, 2016 at 10:00 

a.m., in Courtroom No. 8. 

 3. By no later than August 31, 2016, the parties shall submit a joint status report in 

compliance with the court’s February 23, 2016 order. See ECF No. 39. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

 2

 The previous judge in this case ordered the parties to engage in settlement negotiations 

and ordered the case stayed pending those efforts. ECF No. 40. That stay was lifted and the 

parties were ordered to address the Rule 16 scheduling factors so that the court could issue the 

order mandated by Rule 16(b)(2) (“The judge must issue the scheduling order as soon as 

practicable” and absent good cause “within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been 

served with the complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared.” (emphasis added)). 

Case 2:16-cv-00391-EFB Document 46 Filed 08/24/16 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 

27 

28 

3

 4. Alternatively, the parties may submit a stipulation and order which explains the good 

cause that necessitates another stay of the case for 60 days while they decide whether to settle. 

DATED: August 24, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00391-EFB Document 46 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 3