Opinion
No. CIV.S-05-1181 WBS DAD.
August 9, 2006
ORDER
The parties have filed a fourth stipulation and proposed order seeking to extend the time to complete discovery in this action. In this regard, the parties seek up to and including August 31, 2006, for plaintiff to disclose experts and for the parties to complete all non-expert discovery. The parties also seek "an extension of the discovery motion cut-off date to and including September 30, 2006." (Stipulation at 2.)
Presumably this latter extension request is intended to refer to the time for having discovery motions heard relating only to expert discovery, since the parties having proposed that non-expert discovery be completed by August 31, 2006.
The initial scheduling order issued by the assigned district judge in this case provides as follows with respect to modifications of that order:
Any requests to modify the dates or terms of this Scheduling Order, except requests to change the dates of the Final Pretrial Conference or trial, may be heard and decided by the assigned Magistrate Judge. All requests to change the dates of the Pretrial Conference and/or trial shall be heard and decided only by the undersigned judge.
(Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order at 4-5.) Thus, the undersigned is authorized to modify only the dates regarding discovery and law and motion deadlines but is not authorized to change the Final Pretrial Conference or trial dates.
On its face, the fourth stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties concerns only discovery dates. However, the additional time sought by the parties to continue to conduct discovery would appear to necessitate a change in the Final Pretrial Conference and/or trial dates as well. For example, it would not appear workable for the parties to have a "discovery motion cut-off date to and including September 30, 2006," while still maintaining the Final Pretrial Conference date of October 10, 2006, just ten days later.
The parties represent that a motion for summary judgment has been heard and is currently under submission and that no other dispositive motions are planned by either side.
Accordingly, because the parties' fourth stipulation and proposed order extending discovery dates in this action would necessitate a change in the Final Pretrial Conference and trial dates, the parties' request is denied is without prejudice to the parties seeking modification of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order by the assigned district judge.