The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY AND DENYING LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 29)
Mimi Perez-Falcon ("Plaintiff") seeks to amend the scheduling order to reopen discovery and file an amended complaint. (Doc. 29). Synagro West, LLC ("Defendant" or "Synagro West") opposes the motion. (Doc. 32). On March 25, 2013, the Court heard the arguments of counsel on the motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order is DENIED.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against Defendant on September 27, 2011. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges her employment with Defendant was wrongfully terminated because she complained about sexual harassment. Id. at 3. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts Defendant is liable for wrongful termination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and public policy related to retaliation for complaints. Further, Plaintiff asserts she was involved in "disputes with her supervisor concerning violations of defendant's permits relating to clean air standards and solid waste disposal standards." Id. at 4. Thus, Plaintiff contends she was also wrongfully terminated "in 2 violation of public policy relating to complaints about solid waste disposal and violations of permits, 3 statutes, and regulations." Id. (emphasis omitted). Finally, Plaintiff asserts Defendant failed to pay her 4 earnings through her termination date in a timely manner, in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 201. Id. at 5. Defendant filed its answer to the complaint on January 6, 2012. (Doc. 14).
On February 29, 2012, the Court held a conference and issued its scheduling order setting forth 7 the deadlines governing the proceeding. (Doc. 17). Specifically, the Court ordered "[a]ny motion or 8 stipulation to amend a pleading SHALL be filed no later than June 1, 2012." Id. at 2 (emphasis in 9 original). Also, the Court ordered discovery pertaining to non-experts be completed on or before December 17, 2012, and discovery related to experts be completed on or before February 8, 2013. Id.
On February 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed the motion to amend now before the Court, seeking an order to reopen discovery (1) "to allow Plaintiff to name witnesses and discover matters relating to other employees who have been treated similarly to Plaintiff" [and] (2) allow discovery "relating to the relationship between the parent entity and subsidiaries including discovery relevant to punitive damages." (Doc. 29 at 1). In addition, Plaintiff seeks to "fil[e] an amended complaint in this matter adding the parent entity, Synagro Technologies, Inc.," because the "entity may have employed a policy of terminating employees who complain about illegalities and noncompliance with environmental regulations. Id.
Defendant filed its opposition to the motion on March 11, 2013 (Doc. 32), to which Plaintiff filed a reply on March 18, 2013. (Doc. 35).
Districts courts must enter scheduling orders in actions to "limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). In addition, scheduling orders may "modify the timing of disclosures" and "modify the extent of discovery." Id. Once entered by the court, a scheduling order "controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders 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 "the heart of case management." Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). 2
Further, scheduling orders are "not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be 3 cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610 (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. 4 Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Maine 1985)). Good cause must be shown for modification 5 of the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Ninth Circuit explained: 6
Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. Although the existence of a degree of prejudice to the party opposing the
modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Therefore, parties must "diligently attempt to adhere to the schedule throughout the course of the litigation." Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). The party requesting modification of a scheduling order has the burden to demonstrate:
(1) that she was diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable Rule 16 order, (2) that her noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference, and (3) that she was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it become apparent that she could not comply with the order. Id. at 608 (internal citations omitted).
III. Discussion and Analysis
The Scheduling Order set forth a pleading amendment deadline of June 1, 2012. (Doc. 17 at 2). The current motion was not filed until February 22, 2013. (Doc. 29) Thus, Plaintiff is required to demonstrate good cause under Rule 16 for filing an amended pleading out-of-time. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining the question of whether the liberal amendment standard of Rule 15(a) or the good cause standard of Rule 16(b) apples to a motion for leave to amend a complaint depends on whether a deadline set in a Rule 16(b) scheduling order has expired). Likewise, Plaintiff must demonstrate good cause under Rule 16 to re-open discovery, as the deadline of December 17, 2012, has expired. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Accordingly, the Court examines Plaintiff's diligence to determine whether amendment of the scheduling order is proper. 2
A. Diligence in conducting discovery
Plaintiff asserts her attorney "received a phone call from Anthony Chaney, a former Synagro
4 employee from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania," after the discovery deadline passed in the case.*fn1 (Doc. 30 5 at 1). Discussing the case filed by Mr. Chaney in Pennsylvania, counsel learned "the same individuals 6 were involved with both parties prior to ...