IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 8, 2012
KATHLEEN STEWART, PLAINTIFF,
CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 3, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER*fn1
Plaintiff Kathleen Stewart ("Stewart") moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 16 for an order modifying the Pretrial Scheduling Order to continue the deadline to complete discovery until October 12, 2012. Defendant Cintas Corporation No. 3 ("Cintas") did not file an opposition brief or a statement of non-opposition as required by Local Rule 78-230(c).
Stewart argues there is good cause to extend the discovery deadline. Stewart specifically argues the discovery deadline could not reasonably have been met despite her diligence, since the circumstances she argues require additional discovery occurred after the discovery deadline. (Mot. 5:1-4.) Stewart's counsel, Kara Keister ("Keister"), avers in her supporting declaration that Cintas produced "a key document known as [the] re-route proposal" after the May 9, 2011 deadline for completing all discovery. (Keister Decl. ¶ 3.) Keister avers she "did not depose any witnesses after receiving the re-route proposal . . . , because the discovery cutoff in the Pretrial Scheduling Order had already expired" and "it appeared . . . that the re-route proposal itself was sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment[.]" Id.
In light of Stewart's showing and since the motion is unopposed, her motion is GRANTED as follows: the discovery completion date is changed to October 12, 2012.