Johnson v. Knight Transportation, Inc., 1:18-CV-01674-JLT. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190906703
Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 24) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule to extend all deadlines by about four months. They assert that, "due to the number of expert and lay witness depositions, and despite the diligence of the Parties, the Parties have been unable to schedule all depositions in this case to occur by the afore-mentioned deadlines." (Doc. 24 at 2) Notably, they do not describe the discove
Summary: ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 24) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule to extend all deadlines by about four months. They assert that, "due to the number of expert and lay witness depositions, and despite the diligence of the Parties, the Parties have been unable to schedule all depositions in this case to occur by the afore-mentioned deadlines." (Doc. 24 at 2) Notably, they do not describe the discover..
More
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE
(Doc. 24)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule to extend all deadlines by about four months. They assert that, "due to the number of expert and lay witness depositions, and despite the diligence of the Parties, the Parties have been unable to schedule all depositions in this case to occur by the afore-mentioned deadlines." (Doc. 24 at 2) Notably, they do not describe the discovery conducted to date, the number of depositions they need to complete, the number they have already completed, when they first learned of the necessity of taking the remaining depositions and why they did not learn of this need earlier, when they began attempting to schedule the depositions and what the impediments are for completing them. Indeed, they have not explained why they need four months to take depositions.1 In short, the parties have failed to demonstrate they have acted diligently in completing discovery (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609-610 (9th Cir. 1992)) and, consequently, the Court cannot find good cause for amending the case schedule. Thus, the stipulation to amend the case schedule is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. They mention expert depositions, but expert discovery has not begun and will not complete until the end of November. Thus, the Court is uncertain how the parties know now that they cannot complete this discovery within the 75 days allotted for this activity.
Source: Leagle
