The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 I.L., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01769-KES-CDB
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PARTIES’
13 v. STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND
CASE MANAGEMENT DATES
14 SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORP., et
al., (Doc. 57)
15
Defendants.
16
17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint stipulated request to extend the time for taking
18 discovery in advance of their briefing of Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification, filed
19 on July 11, 2025 -- the deadline to complete nonexpert discovery. (Doc. 57 at 3-4).
20 In support of the request, the parties represent that they have exchanged written discovery
21 requests and engaged in substantial meet and confer efforts concerning disputes related to said
22 requests. The parties represent that they have met and conferred regarding depositions of Plaintiffs
23 and accommodations for their completion, particularly as to mutually available dates. They further
24 represent that they have met and conferred regarding the scope of topics at issue in the deposition
25 requested by Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and have come to an
26 agreement regarding the scope thereof, with said deposition to proceed on a mutually available date
27 after the depositions of Plaintiffs J.M. and C.T. Lastly, the parties provide that they are “in the
28 process of further meeting and conferring concerning the scope of a subpoena that Plaintiffs
1 directed to non-party International Board of Credentialing and Continuing Education Standards
2 (‘IBCCES’).” (Doc. 57 at 2).
3 Discussion
4 District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties,
5 amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Once
6 entered, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R
7 Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v.
8 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).
9 “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly
10 disregarded by counsel without peril.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of
11 Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the
12 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As the Court of Appeals has observed:
13 In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts in both the federal and
state systems routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to
14 foster efficient treatment and resolution of cases. Those efforts will
be successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties,
15 and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines. Parties
must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply
16 strictly with scheduling and other orders...
17 Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’
18 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d
19 at 609. If the moving party is unable to reasonably meet a deadline despite acting diligently, the
20 scheduling order may be modified. Id. If, however, the moving party “‘was not diligent, the inquiry
21 should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302
22 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
23 Moreover, in the Eastern District of California, “[r]equests for Court-approved extensions
24 brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with
25 disfavor.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 144(d). Instead, this Court’s local rules require counsel to “seek
26 to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon
27 as the need for an extension becomes apparent.” Id. (emphasis added).
28 Here, the parties failed to file in support of their stipulated request any attorney affidavit or
1 | declaration, as required by the operative scheduling order. (Doc. 35 at 4, noting “Stipulations
2 | extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by
3 | affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for
4 | granting the relief requested”; emphasis omitted). Furthermore, the parties filed their stipulated
5 || request on the first date they seek to extend -- deadline for completing nonexpert discovery. Thus,
6 | the parties’ request violates Local Rule 144 as any such extension will be nunc pro tunc. The Court
7 | disfavors granting relief nunc pro tunc and admonishes the parties to exercise better care and to
8 | adhere to this Court’s Local Rules in all future filings. Finally, the unattested representations
9 | contained in the parties’ stipulation fall short of demonstrating good cause for the requested
10 | extension -- the parties provide scarce details about their undertaking of discovery to date that
11 | prevents the Court from assessing their diligence.
12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny the request without prejudice.
13 Conclusion and Order
14 Accordingly, the parties’ joint stipulated request to extend case management dates (Doc.
15 | 57) is DENIED without prejudice.
16 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
'7 | Dated: _ July 14, 2025 | hr
18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28