Opinion
3:21-cv-05411-DGE
01-18-2023
ELIAS PENA, Plaintiffs, v. ISAIAH HUTSON, Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
HONORABLE DAVID G. ESTUDILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, United States District Judge David G. Estudillo:
The parties stipulated motion and proposed order for an extension of discovery and the dispositive deadline is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 40.) Strict adherence to deadlines is crucial for the Court's case management. “In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts [in the federal system] routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties, and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines.” Wong v. Regents of Univ. of California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005).
The parties filed their motion on the last day of discovery. The stipulation does not identify who the listed witnesses are, what information they might possess, and why their depositions are necessary. The stipulation also fails to identify when the depositions were requested and when the attorneys received responses regarding the witnesses' availability. Aside from the general assertion that the parties could not complete depositions “because of preexisting work, travel commitments, and jury service,” the stipulation does not explain why the parties failed to meet the deadline previously extended by the Court at the parties' request. There are six Plaintiffs' attorneys and two attorneys representing Defendant. It remains unclear why these attorneys could not have covered in the case of one attorney's absence. Good cause to modify the current case schedule and to extend previously agreed to deadlines has not been shown.
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Stipulated Motion and Proposed Order (Dkt. No. 40).
The foregoing Minute Order authorized.