Howell v. Leprino Foods Company

Opinion

ANDREW HOWELL, on behalf of himself Case No. 1:18-cv-01404-ADA-BAM and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals., ORDER DENYING REQUESTED EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FILING Plaintiff, DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS AND TAKING EXPERT DEPOSITIONS WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, et al., (Doc. 146) Defendants. On August 7, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation to (1) extend the current deadline for filing dispositive motions from August 18, 2023 until October 13, 2023, and (2) extend the expert discovery deadline to October 13, 2023, for the sole purpose of taking the depositions of the parties’ designated experts. The parties explain that they have reached a tentative settlement. (Doc. 146.) Having considered the parties’ stipulation, the Court does not find good cause to grant the requested modification of the Supplemental Scheduling Order issued on July 6, 2022. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). Settlement discussions, in and of themselves, 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). Accordingly, the parties’ requested modification of the Supplemental Scheduling Order is DENIED without prejudice. The parties are not precluded from seeking modification of the Supplemental Scheduling Order supported by a demonstrated showing of good cause. Alternatively, if the action has been settled or otherwise resolved by agreement of the parties, then counsel must file a notice of settlement or resolution. See L.R. 160(a). The Court will then set a deadline for the filing of dispositive documents and vacate all pending dates and matters. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE