United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2024

Cavazos v. County of Fresno

Cavazos v. County of Fresno
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided September 13, 2024
Cavazos v. County of Fresno

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOIDA CAVAZOS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00859-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., (Doc. 45) 15 Defendants.

17 On September 11, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation and request to modify the Scheduling Order to extend the non-expert and expert discovery deadlines, including expert disclosure deadlines, an additional ninety (90) days. (Doc. 45.) The parties explain that they have a private mediation scheduled for December 4, 2024, they “have been in settlement discussions,” and have “agreed to hold off on the party depositions until the mediation had concluded.” (Id. at 2.) They also wish to conduct mediation before incurring substantial expenses associated with retaining their respective experts. (Id.) 24 Having considered the parties’ stipulation, the Court does not find good cause to grant the requested modification of the Scheduling Order issued on September 6, 2023. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”).

27 Settlement discussions are not good cause to modify a scheduling order. See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., 2013 WL 645741, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013); see also Burton v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 1:13-cv-00307-LJO-JLT, 2014 WL 3890103, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug.

3 4, 2014 (indicating discussions regarding dispute resolution do not, in and of themselves, arise to good cause for modifying a scheduling order). The parties fail to explain why the non-expert and expert discovery deadlines cannot be met and why discovery cannot be completed in the time allotted. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (indicating district court may modify pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension”). Accordingly, the parties’ joint stipulation is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: September 12, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.