UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 10, 2012
BLACK AND DECKER (U.S) INC., AND DOES 1 TO 50,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT THE PARTIES' STIPULATION (Doc. 12)
The parties filed a stipulation on October 4, 2012, agreeing to a modification of this Court's Scheduling Order. (Doc. 11). The Court has reviewed the stipulation and declines to adopt it at the present time for the following reasons.
In the stipulation, the parties indicate a desire to move the non-expert and expert discovery deadlines, however, they have given no explanation to justify the change. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2) and (3) requires district courts to enter scheduling orders to establish deadlines for, among other things, "to file motions" and "to complete discovery." A modification of the scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Scheduling orders "are at the heart of case management," Koplve v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir.1986), and are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.1992). As such, a scheduling order "is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril." Id. at 610. Here, the parties have not met the good cause standard, nor have they established the requisite due diligence.
Moreover, the stipulation does not address the fact that movement of the discovery dates will impact all of the other dates in the scheduling order. As such, any amended stipulation must address the good cause standard, as well as provide proposed dates for any other deadlines/hearings that are affected by the modification. Counsel should examine the scheduling order issued on February 23, 2012, as a guide to estimate the required time allotted between dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.