Macias v. City of Delano

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRANCO MACIAS, et al., Case No.: 1:18-CV-01634 - DAD - JLT 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE 13 v. (Doc. 32) CITY OF DELANO, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Counsel for the parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule (Doc. 32). They assert only that the COVID-19 pandemic is occurring and “there is simply no way the parties can complete discovery and other requirements of this case under the current schedule.” Id. at 2. This is a conclusion, not a fact. Indeed, counsel have failed to provide any explanation why they have not completed discovery in this case.1 Not to minimize the impacts of this situation, but the pandemic alone does not explain the failure to complete non-expert discovery.2 In February, the parties reported that they only had depositions to take to complete non-expert discovery (Doc. 31 at 2). Counsel fail to explain the discovery they have completed since they filed the February status report, they fail to describe the discovery they need to complete, and they fail to detail why they could not complete the needed discovery.

2 The Court has been conducting all civil and criminal hearings, settlement conferences and all other proceedings via video conference for more than four months. The Court does not understand counsel’s unwillingness to more quickly transition to this “new normal.” If the Court has managed to do it, it is difficult to fathom why counsel have been so 1 In addition, counsel have failed to explain why they waited until the day before the discovery deadline to seek an amendment to the case schedule. Notably, the scheduling order reads, “No motion to amend or stipulation to amend the case schedule will be entertained unless it is filed at least one week before the first deadline the parties wish to extend.” (Doc.

5 20 at 4, emphasis in the original.) The order also reads, “The dates set in this order 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.” Id. at 8, emphasis in the original.

11 The law is clear, that absent a showing of diligence the Court should not grant an amendment to the case schedule3. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992); Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999). Counsel have made no effort to demonstrate the exercise of diligence. Therefore, the stipulation to amend the case schedule is DENIED.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: July 29, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28 3 Finally, the suggestion that because this Court has declared a judicial emergency, this means that it can afford to allow cases to languish misses the mark. The Court’s scare judicial resources means it absolutely cannot allow cases