From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutton v. Management & Training Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 27, 2015
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01344 AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01344 AWI-JLT

03-27-2015

BRUCE DWIGHT SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, AND JOHN DOES 1 - 9, Defendants.


ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 57)

Before the Court is a stipulation to amend the scheduling order that is focused on extending time to complete expert discovery. (Doc. 57 at 2) In the stipulation, counsel report that, without obtaining the Court's authorization, they agreed to delay the disclosure of experts and rebuttal experts one week each. Id. This occurred despite that the Court had previously authorized an extension of time related to expert discovery. (Doc. 51)

Given their agreement to delay disclosure, the parties have insufficient time to complete expert discovery by the deadline—today. (Doc. 57) Other than setting forth this situation, counsel make no other showing that good cause exists to modify the case schedule.

Counsel had to have been aware when they agreed to delay the disclosures that they would have little time to complete depositions once the disclosures occurred.

Notably, courts are vested with the authority to "modify the timing of disclosures." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Once entered by a court, a scheduling order "controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it." Id. Scheduling orders are "not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Moreover, good cause must be shown for modification of the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

Because counsel have failed to demonstrate good cause to justify amendment of the case schedule, the stipulation is DENIED. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. IT IS SO ORDERED.

The request to modify the case schedule to allow dispositive motions to be filed on May 4, 2015 is MOOT. May 4, 2015 is the current deadline. (Doc. 51 at 2)
--------

Dated: March 27 , 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Sutton v. Management & Training Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 27, 2015
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01344 AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015)
Case details for

Sutton v. Management & Training Corporation

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE DWIGHT SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, AND…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 27, 2015

Citations

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01344 AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2015)