Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00992-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pacific Marine Center, Inc.
Plaintiff
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
Defendant
Sona Vartanian
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC., A 

California Corporation, and SONA 

VARTANIAN, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Pennsylvanian Corporation, and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00992-AWI-SKO

ORDER DENYING PARTIES' 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY 

THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING 

DEADLINES

(Doc. No. 59)

On November 13, 2015, the parties filed their 6th stipulation and request for a schedule 

modification -- less than one month after their most recent request to modify the schedule. (Doc. 

59.) 

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 60 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 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

2

The parties indicate they "are having substantial difficulty in scheduling depositions of 

[expert] witnesses in part because of the Thanksgiving vacation period and have agreed to seek the 

extensions . . . . " (Doc. 59.) The most recent request for a schedule modification was made on 

October 21, 2015, when the parties specifically requested an expert discovery cutoff of December 

3, 2015. They now state this schedule is apparently unworkable because of the upcoming 

holidays.

This latest request for additional time to complete expert discovery is not supported by 

good cause, and appears to be the product of a routine scheduling conflict that could have been 

foreseen. The parties may stipulate among themselves to conduct discovery outside the deadlines, 

should they be so inclined, but the Court will not extend the scheduling deadlines to accommodate 

the parties' lack of planning. Johnson v. Mammoth Rec., Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 

("carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of 

relief" to modify the pretrial schedule). As such, this request is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 60 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2