UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 2, 2012
ALEXANDRO AGUIRRE AND RAFAEL AGUIRRE, PLAINTIFFS,
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINE (Document 54)
On April 2, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation to Continue Discovery Deadline and Proposed Order Thereon in this action. More particularly, the parties agreed to extend the "current discovery cut-off deadline of February 29, 2012, . . . to March 31, 2012," to permit certain depositions to occur. (Doc. 54.) The Court declines to adopt to the stipulations for the reasons that follow.
First, the stipulation is not accompanied by affidavit or declaration establishing good cause as is required. (See Doc. 48 at 6 ["Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations with attached exhibits, where appropriate, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested"]; see also Local Rule 143(b) ["Stipulations are not effective unless approved by the Court . . ."].)
Second, the stipulation fails to speak to its untimeliness, nor does it seek nunc pro tunc effect as the deadline to be extended passed more than thirty-three (33) days prior. (Local Rule 144(d) ["Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date . . . are looked upon with disfavor"].) Here, counsel for Defendant and Cross-Defendant Compact Power Equipment Centers, LLC, signed the stipulation on February 28, 2012. (Doc. 54 at 1.) However, counsel for Plaintiffs Alexander Aguirre and Rafael Aguirre and counsel for Defendant and Cross-Defendant JLG Industries, Inc. and Defendant and Cross-Complainant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., signed the stipulation after the deadline has passed. (See Doc. 54 at 2-3.) Finally, no explanation is provided to explain the delay after the last signature was obtained. Moreover, no explanation is offered to account for the period between March 8, 2012 - the date of the most recent signature -and today's date.
The parties are reminded that the "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with [the Local Rules] or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." (Local Rule 110.)
In sum, as explained above, this Court declines to adopt the parties' stipulation to extend the discovery deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.