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

* These motions were determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1 All references to “Rule 16" are to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM, )

) 02:04-cv-1290-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER*

v. )

)

COUNTY OF COLUSA, COUNTY OF COLUSA )

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, JOHN )

S. WRYSINSKI, individually and in )

his capacity as Director of County )

of Colusa Dept. of Public Works, )

DONALD F. STANTON, individually )

and in his capacity as legal )

counsel to County of Colusa, DAVID )

J. Shoemaker, individually and in )

his capacity as CAO/Personnel )

Director of Colusa County Dept. of )

Public Works, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 30, 2005, Defendants noticed a motion to amend

the Rule 16 Scheduling Order (“Motion to Amend”) and concurrently

filed a motion to shorten time for hearing the Motion to Amend.1

Defendants seek to amend the Rule 16 Scheduling Order (“Scheduling

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 121 Filed 01/06/06 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

Order”) so that they may re-file their motion for summary judgment

that was denied on December 15, 2005, for failure to file a Statement

of Undisputed Facts as required by Local Rule 56-260(a).

The Amended Scheduling Order filed December 14, 2004,

prescribes, “[t]he last hearing date for motions shall be

December 19, 2005.” (Am. Scheduling Order at 2). Once a scheduling

order establishes a deadline for law and motion matters, amendment of

that deadline is governed by the Rule 16 “good cause” standard. 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.

1992). The primary focus of the good cause standard is the diligence

of the party seeking amendment. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. The

diligence inquiry includes determining whether the Scheduling Order

could not “reasonably [have] be[en] met despite the diligence of the

[movant].” Id. “If [the movant] was not diligent, the inquiry should

end.” Id.

Defendants argue they were diligent in attempting to meet

the motion deadline because they timely filed all the papers required

for their summary judgment motion except the Statement of Undisputed

Facts, which “inadvertently slipped through the cracks during filing.” 

(Mot. Amend at 6.) However, “carelessness is not compatible with a

finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Therefore, Defendants’ stated inadvertence

does not establish good cause justifying the amendment they seek. 

Defendants further argue that because of “the important

nature of qualified immunity” and “Plaintiff’s own legal concessions”

the Scheduling Order should be amended to “allow Defendants time to

[re-]file their motion for summary judgment in order to efficiently

resolve legal issues prior to trial.” (Mot. Amend at 5.) This

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 121 Filed 01/06/06 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

argument also fails to establish good cause and does not show

“recogni[tion] [that] scheduling orders are at the heart of case

management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3d Cir.

1986). 

“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly

entered,” and should not be modified absence a showing of good cause. 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

“Indeed, a scheduling order is the critical path chosen by the trial

judge and the parties to fulfill the mandate of Rule 1 in ‘secur[ing]

the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.’” 

Marcum v. Zimmer, 163 F.R.D. 250, 253 (S.D.W.V. 1995). For that

reason, a “district court’s decision to honor the terms of its binding

scheduling order does not simply exalt procedural technicalities over

the merits of [the] case.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. Rather, it

recognizes that the Scheduling Order “controls the subsequent course

of the action unless modified by [a showing of good cause].” Johnson,

975 F.2d at 608.

Since Defendants have not shown that good cause exists to

amend the Scheduling Order, their Motion to Amend is denied and their

motion to shorten time is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 121 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 3