The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILING DEADLINE, THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE DATE, AND THE TRIAL DATE (Docket No. 38)
On May 21, 2012, the day prior to the scheduled settlement conference in this action, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order requesting to continue the settlement conference from May 22, 2012, to July 19, 2012; to continue the dispositive motion filing deadline from June 4, 2012 to August 6, 2012; and to continue the pre-trial conference and trial dates. (Docs. 37, 38.) The Court granted the parties' request to continue the settlement conference only, which has been re-set for July 19, 2012. (Doc. 39.)
The Court now considers the parties' request to continue the dispositive motion filing deadline and the pre-trial conference and trial dates. For the reasons set forth below, the parties' request to continue these dates is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
On May 21, 2012, the parties submitted a stipulated request seeking to continue the dispositive motion filing deadline from June 4, 2012, to August 6, 2012, and requesting that the pre-trial conference, currently set for September 6, 2012, and the trial date, currently set for October 30, 2012, also be continued. (Doc. 38.) As such, the parties proposed modification to the schedule and the existing deadlines are as follows:
Deadline Current Deadline Proposed Deadline
1. Disp. Mot. Filing Deadline June 4, 2012 August 6, 2012
2. Dispositive Mot. Hearing July 16, 2012 none proposed
3. Pre-trial Conference September 6, 2012 none proposed
4. Trial October 30, 2012 none proposed
Although the parties requested that the pre-trial conference and the trial date be continued, no specific dates were proposed. (Doc. 38.) Further, no date was proposed for the dispositive motion hearing, which is currently scheduled to take place prior to the requested dispositive motion filing date.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) requires that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (emphasis added). To establish "good cause," parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must generally show that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they could not meet the timetable set by the court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992). Additionally, this Court's scheduling order states that the schedule dates are "firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate, attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested." (Doc. 16, 7:21-25 (emphasis omitted).)
Here, the parties indicate that they are requesting a continuance because "Plaintiffs' counsel has lost contact with his clients." (Doc. 38, 1:25.) The parties failed to provide any affidavits or declarations to establish good cause for the continuance and to show that they ...