-EFB (PS) Douglas v. Sacramento County et al, No. 2:2009cv01038 - Document 65 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/17/11 ORDERING that Defendants' Ex Parte Application to modify the Scheduling order 64 is GRANTED. The Final Pretrial Conference, which is currently scheduled for 4/6/11, is CONTINUED to 7/6/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24. The parties shall file pretrial statements, as required by the 11/10/09 Status (Pretrial Scheduling) order, no later than 6/22/11. The 6/7/11 trial date is VACATED at this time. If the 2/10/11 Findings and Recommendations are not adopted, a new trial date will be set before Magistrate Judge Edmund E. Brennan. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
-EFB (PS) Douglas v. Sacramento County et al Doc. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 IRWIN DOUGLAS, 11 12 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1038 KJM EFB PS vs. 13 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 14 Defendants. ___________________________/ ORDER 15 16 This action is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local 17 Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On March 16, 2011, defendants filed an ex parte 18 application to modify the status (pretrial scheduling) order in this action. Dckt. No. 64; see also 19 Dckt. Nos. 24, 59. Specifically, defendants seek to continue the final pretrial conference and 20 trial dates in light of the pending findings and recommendations, which recommend that 21 summary judgment be granted for defendants and that this action be closed, but which have not 22 yet been adopted or rejected by the district judge. See Dckt. No. 61. 23 A schedule may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good 24 cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising 25 due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 26 “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s 2 reasons for seeking modification.” Id. Here, although defendants’ ex parte application is not in 3 strict compliance with the Local Rules,1 the application is supported by good cause. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Defendants’ ex parte application to modify the scheduling order, Dckt. No. 64, is 6 granted. 7 2. The final pretrial conference, which is currently scheduled for April 6, 2011, is 8 continued to July 6, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24. The parties shall file pretrial 9 statements, as required by the November 10, 2009 status (pretrial scheduling) order, no later than 10 June 22, 2011. 11 3. The June 7, 2011 trial date is vacated at this time. If the February 10, 2011 findings 12 and recommendations are not adopted, a new trial date will be set before the assigned district 13 judge. 14 15 SO ORDERED. DATED: March 17, 2011. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 25 26 Local Rule 230 provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in these Rules or as ordered or allowed by the Court, all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Local Rule 144, which permits matters to be heart on shortened time, provides that “[a]pplications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time [and] will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the action.” 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.