Opinion
No. 2:05-cv-1201-GEB-GGH.
February 27, 2006
AMENDED REJECTION OF STIPULATION TO MODIFY RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER
This ruling supercedes and vacates docket entry number 16 filed on February 27, 2006.
On February 23, 2006, the parties filed a Stipulation in which Defendant mistakenly concludes that each time a party decides to change lawyers, the Rule 16 scheduling order must be amended to accommodate the schedule of new counsel. Defendant and its new attorney should have been mindful of the deadlines prescribed in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order before change of counsel occurred.See Matrix Motor Co., Inc. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 676 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (imputing responsibility of being aware of Rule 16 Scheduling Order dates to the plaintiff as well as counsel); cf. Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 1998) (stating "litigants have an unflagging duty to comply with clearly communicated case-management orders"). Since it has not been shown that Defendant's change of counsel constitutes "good cause" justifying amendment of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, the Stipulation is rejected.