From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

RISSO v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jan 2, 2008
2:07-cv-451-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2008)

Opinion

2:07-cv-451-GEB-DAD.

January 2, 2008


ORDER

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).


On December 22, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the "discovery cut-off, pretrial and trial dates," which were set in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, be vacated until the Ninth Circuit has issued a decision in Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 505 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2007) (granting rehearing en banc). The parties further state that

[a]ll parties have been and continue to cooperate in diligent discovery, but given the potential impact of the Beltran decision in this case, the time it may take for the [Ninth] Circuit to issue a decision in that matter, the impact of the holiday season and the recent death of a parent of one of the parties on the ability to meet deadlines on expert and rebuttal expert disclosures, [the Rule 16 scheduling order dates should be modified].

(Stipulation at 2:3-8.)

The parties' conclusory statements concerning the potential impact of the Beltran decision on this case provides insufficient reason to justify the modification of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order they seek.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) establishes that scheduling orders may only be modified upon a showing of "good cause." Counsel were cautioned in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order that "[a] mere stipulation by itself to change dates does not constitute good cause." (Scheduling Order at 6:12-11.) It is assumed, however, that the recent death of a parent of one of the parties interfered with that party's ability to meet the prescribed expert disclosure deadlines. Therefore, the Rule 16 Scheduling Order is modified as follows:

(1) Each party shall comply with initial expert disclosures authorized under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before February 8, 2008;

(2) each party shall comply with rebuttal expert disclosures on or before March 10, 2008;

(3) discovery shall be completed by July 8, 2008;

(4) the last hearing date for motions shall be September 8, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.; and

(5) the final pretrial conference is set for November 3, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

This modification to the Rule 16 scheduling order reduces the amount of time between the trial commencement date of December 16, 2008, and the final pretrial conference. Because of this reduction, it is unlikely that a settlement conference supervised by a federal judge will be scheduled in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

RISSO v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jan 2, 2008
2:07-cv-451-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2008)
Case details for

RISSO v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

Case Details

Full title:MARK RISSO; A.R., by and through her guardian ad litem, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 2, 2008

Citations

2:07-cv-451-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2008)