Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Redos v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 2, 2009

JOHN F. REDOS, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order the cases of Redos v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:08-cv-01036-MCE-JKM, and Nickles v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:08-cv-01155-MCE-KJM. The Court previously ordered these cases consolidated for discovery purposes only with Gomez v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:09-cv-00225-MCE-KJM. Plaintiffs Redos and Nickles now contend that the discovery deadlines set in the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order ("PTSO") should be extended so that they are in keeping with those set in the Gomez case. This Court agrees.

Generally, the Court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling order within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The scheduling order "controls the subsequent course of the action" unless modified by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a showing of "good cause," Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), but orders "following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992).

Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Id. at 609. "The district court may modify the pretrial schedule 'if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Id., quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983 amendment). "Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief." Id. "Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Id.

Good cause having been shown, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the PTSO (Docket NO. 21) is GRANTED. Since the modification of the discovery dates in this case necessarily requires modification of all scheduling dates, the Court will issue an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order in Redos and Nickles within ten (10) days of the date this Order is electronically filed. The hearing currently scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on July 16, 2009, is hereby vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090702

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.