Opinion
22-cv-02944-AMO
05-17-2024
CHRISTOPHER HINZE, Plaintiff, v. TESLA, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 56
ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court is in receipt of the parties' stipulation to extend the case schedule in this case for a third time. The Court has reviewed the stipulation and accompanying declaration and does not find good cause to grant the requested extension. The requested extension is not commensurate with the limited fact discovery that, according to the parties, remains outstanding, and the parties do not make clear when that pending discovery was propounded. Moreover, the stipulation seeks, in part, to extend deadlines that have already expired, including the deadline to complete fact discovery, which closed on April 15, 2024, and the deadline for plaintiff's expert disclosures and reports, which were due April 22, 2024. See ECF 52.
The parties may re-submit their stipulation if they believe they can show good cause to continue the remaining deadlines, but the Court will not re-open deadlines that have already expired. The parties are also on notice that any renewed stipulation seeking to change the briefing schedule on dispositive motions will require an adjustment to the dispositive motion hearing date, the pretrial conference date, and the trial date, which will be re-set as the Court's calendar permits.
Any request to continue those deadlines was due at least seven days before they expired. See Standing Order for Civil Cases ¶ D.2.
Any renewed stipulation must be accompanied by a proposed order that includes a chart in the following format:
Event
Existing Deadline
Requested Deadline
A word version of the proposed order shall be emailed to amopo@cand.uscourts.gov. See Civil L.R 5-1(f).
IT IS SO ORDERED.