UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 4, 2009
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER, INC. RETIREMENT TRUST FUND, PLAINTIFF,
WAYNE A. VOTOLATO, AN INDIVIDUAL; DONNA JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND PACIFIC BACKHOE WORKS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ) [Doc. No. 52]
Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings, filed February 2, 2009. [Doc. No. 52.] For the reasons set forth below, the request to amend the scheduling order is DENIED. On June 2, 2008, the Court convened an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. [Doc. No. 44.] Because the case did not settle, on June 3, 2008, the Court entered an order setting a Case Management Conference ("CMC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and required the parties to lodge a joint discovery plan with the Court in advance of the July 18, 2008 CMC. [Doc. No. 45.] After consulting with the attorneys of record for the parties, the Court issued a "Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings" ("Scheduling Order"). [Doc. No. 47.] The present motion to amend the scheduling order to continue all pertinent dates by approximately ninety (90) days was filed just seven days before the discovery deadline in this case-February 9, 2009. Moreover, the only reason given for the requested continuance of previous court-ordered deadlines is "for the purpose of exploring settlement." [Doc. No. 52 at 1.] The Court observes a settlement conferenceis already scheduled on this Court's calendar for March 25, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.
The parties have not demonstrated diligence in complying with dates previously set by the Court, and have not demonstrated "good cause" for modifying the scheduling order, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992); Worldtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Network Solutions, Inc., 2008 WL 4145440 at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2008). Therefore, the Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.