1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHEILLI DIZON and MARK JASON Case No. 1:23-cv-01366-JLT-BAM ESPEJO, 12 ORDER DENYING SECOND STIPULATION Plaintiffs, TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 14 (Doc. 51) AMOR ALEGRE and AURORA RIGON, 15 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO Defendants. CONTACT COURTROOM DEPUTY TO 16 SCHEDULE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 17 18 On April 30, 2025, shortly after defendants retained counsel, the Court granted the 19 parties’ stipulation to modify the Scheduling Conference Order. (Doc. 50.) Pursuant to that 20 order, the Court set the following deadlines:

21 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: August 27, 2025 Expert Disclosure: September 29, 2025 22 Supplemental Expert Disclosure: October 29, 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff: November 14, 2025 23 Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline: January 30, 2026 Pretrial Conference: June 29, 2026, 1:30 p.m., Courtroom 4 (JLT) 24 Jury Trial (7-9 days): August 25, 2026, 8:30 a.m., Courtroom 4 (JLT) 25 (Id.) 26 Currently before the Court is the parties’ second stipulation to modify the scheduling 27 order, filed October 10, 2025. (Doc. 51.) The parties indicate that on July 23, 2025, Defendants 28 1 served deposition notices for deposing Plaintiffs on August 26, 2025. On August 15, 2025, 2 Plaintiffs’ counsel informed defense counsel of his unavailability for depositions for the 3 remainder of August 2025 due to a trial commitment and reiterated the desire to notice the 4 continued deposition of Defendant Alegre and the previously noticed deposition of Defendant 5 Rigon. (Id.) The parties explain that they have met and conferred an agree to participate in an 6 early settlement conference, ideally in November or December 2025. They further agree that (1) 7 the discovery deadlines for fact and expert discovery should be extended to allow sufficient time 8 for percipient and expert discovery; and (2) Plaintiffs’ responses to the written discovery served 9 by Defendants shall be due no later than one week after the Court issues an order reopening 10 discovery. The parties also agree and stipulate to referral to the Court’s Voluntary Dispute 11 Resolution Program. Further, because Defendants are unavailable during the currently scheduled 12 August 26, 2026 trial date, the parties agree that trial should be continued at least sixty (60) days 13 to accommodate availability for the 7–9-day trial. (Id.) 14 A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 15 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v. Quaker Oats 16 Co.,

, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard “primarily 17 considers the diligence of the party” seeking modification). Here, the Court does not find the 18 requisite good cause for modifying the scheduling order. The parties fail to provide an adequate 19 explanation for the failure to complete non-expert discovery prior to the deadline. Counsel’s 20 August 2025 trial commitments are not sufficient, and the parties fail to account for the period 21 between April 30, 2025, when the Court initially extended the discovery deadlines, and August 22 27, 2025. Further, the parties’ request for an extension of the non-expert discovery deadline more 23 than a month after its expiration demonstrates a lack of diligence. The parties also do not explain 24 why Defendants’ unavailability for the currently scheduled trial was not addressed in their prior 25 stipulation. (See Doc. 49.) Additionally, to the extent the parties seek a modification of the 26 pretrial and trial deadlines in order to participate in a settlement conference (or VDRP), the 27 parties are advised that settlement discussions do not constitute good cause justifying 28 modification of a pretrial scheduling order. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific 1 Co., No. 11-cv-01273-LJO-BAM,

, * 4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013). The Court 2 will therefore deny the parties’ second stipulation to modify the scheduling order. However, 3 based on the parties’ agreement to participate in an early settlement conference, they will be 4 directed to contact the Courtroom Deputy to schedule such a conference. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 6 1. The parties’ second stipulation to modify the scheduling order, (Doc. 51), is DENIED 7 without prejudice. 8 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, counsel for the parties shall 9 contact Courtroom Deputy Esther Valdez at [email protected] to schedule a 10 settlement conference with the undersigned. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: October 14, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28