UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 9, 2011
TINA PEREZ, ET AL.,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
(Docket No. 17)
On September 8, 2011, the parties filed a request to modify the scheduling order to allow for additional time to complete discovery due to a death in Plaintiff's counsel's family. The parties request the following changes:
Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline
1. Non-Expert Discovery September 16, 2011 November 15, 2011
2. Expert Disclosure September 19, 2011 November 18, 2011
3. Supp. Exp. Discl. October 3, 2011 December 2, 2011
4. Exp. Discovery November 7, 2011 January 6, 2012
5. Non-Disp. Filing Deadline November 14, 2011 January 13, 2012
6. Disp. Mot. Filing Deadline January 3, 2012 March 3, 2012
The parties do not request a change to the date of the pretrial conference of March 28, 2012, and the trial date of May 22, 2012.
The proposed deadlines do not leave the Court with time to hear any pretrial motions prior to the pre-trial conference. For example, if the dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to March 3, 2012, as the parties request, the earliest date a motion could be heard would be April 2, 2012 -- which falls after the pre-trial conference currently scheduled for March 28, 2012. Therefore, the proposed schedule cannot be accommodated by the Court unless the pretrial conference and trial date are also extended.
The Court is willing to accommodate the parties' request for a modified schedule, but cannot adopt the dates proposed in the stipulation. If the parties wish to refile their request for an extension of the schedule, they should propose dates that maintain at least 6 weeks between the hearing date on any dispositive motion and the pretrial conference as well as at least 6 weeks between the date of the pretrial conference and the date of the trial.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' stipulated request for a modification to the schedule is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.