Kuumba v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00842
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 VIVIAN KUUMBA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00842-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. STIPULATED REQUEST TO AMEND NUNC PRO TUNC SCHEDULING ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., AS MODIFIED

15 Defendants. (Docs. 15, 20) 16 17 Background 18 Plaintiff Vivian Kuumba (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 19 July 19, 2024. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks damages against Defendant United States of America 20 (“USA”), United States Postal Service (“USPS”), and Jose Jeffrey Andrade (collectively, 21 “Defendants”) for claims of negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act arising out of a motor 22 vehicle accident in Bakersfield, California on July 19, 2022. Id. On December 16, 2024, the Court 23 entered the operative scheduling order setting forth discovery and case management dates and 24 deadlines. (Doc. 15). 25 Parties’ Stipulated Request to Amend Scheduling Order 26 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to amend the scheduling order, 27 filed on April 18, 2025. (Doc. 20). The parties represent that on May 23, 2025, the deposition of 28 Plaintiff was noticed for June 5, 2025. Id. ¶ 1. However, on June 4, 2025, counsel for Plaintiff 1 notified counsel for Defendants that the deposition would need to be rescheduled due to an 2 unforeseen medical emergency. Id. ¶ 2. Counsel for the parties met and conferred but were unable 3 to find a mutually available date before the non-expert discovery cutoff of June 16, 2025. Id. ¶ 3. 4 The parties represent that June 30, 2025, or July 1, 2025, are jointly available dates for the 5 deposition of Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 4. Counsel for Plaintiff declares that good cause exists to amend the 6 scheduling order because both parties require additional time to complete discovery, and despite 7 diligent efforts, certain discovery requests and responses remain outstanding, and additional time 8 is needed to conduct depositions and obtain relevant documents. (Doc. 20-1, Declaration of Alina 9 S. Vulic (“Vulic Decl.”) ¶ 2). Counsel for Plaintiff further declares that the parties have expressed 10 a mutual interest in engaging in mediation, and additional time will allow the parties “to explore 11 the possibility of resolving this matter without further litigation.” Id. ¶ 4. The parties therefore 12 request the following modifications to the scheduling order (Doc. 20 at 2): 13 Event Prior Date Amended Date 14 Non-Expert Discovery Deadline 06/16/2025 12/16/2025 15 Expert Disclosure Deadline 06/30/2025 12/30/2025 16 Rebuttal Disclosure Deadline 07/28/2025 01/28/2026 17 Expert Discovery Deadline 8/28/2025 02/27/2026 18 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing 09/12/2025 03/12/2026 19 Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing 10/17/2025 04/17/2026 20 Dispositive Motion Hearing 12/15/2025 06/15/2026 21 Pre-Trial Conference 04/20/2026 10/20/2026 22 Trial Date 06/23/2026 12/29/2026 23 Standard of Law 24 District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, 25 amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Once 26 entered, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R 27 Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. 28 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 2 disregarded by counsel without peril.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Under Federal Rule 3 of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 4 judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As the Court of Appeals has observed: 5 In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts in both the federal and state systems routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to 6 foster efficient treatment and resolution of cases. Those efforts will 7 be successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties, and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the deadlines. Parties 8 must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply strictly with scheduling and other orders... 9 10 Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 11 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 12 F.2d at 609. If the moving party is unable to reasonably meet a deadline despite acting diligently, 13 the scheduling order may be modified. Id. If, however, the moving party “‘was not diligent, the 14 inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison 15 Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 16 Moreover, in the Eastern District of California, “[r]equests for Court-approved extensions 17 brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with 18 disfavor.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 144(d). Instead, this Court’s local rules require counsel to “seek 19 to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon 20 as the need for an extension becomes apparent.” Id. (emphasis added). 21 Discussion 22 Good cause does not exist to grant the requested six-month extension of all case 23 management dates. To begin with, the parties filed their stipulated request to continue all 24 discovery, case management, pretrial and trial dates and deadlines two days after the deadline for 25 fact discovery already had expired. Despite the parties’ representations that good cause exists to 26 grant their request to extend all case management dates, in fact, the parties have shown limited 27 good cause exists only to continue nunc pro tunc discovery dates and deadlines to facilitate the 28 deposition of Plaintiff. 1 Though the parties represent generally that additional time is needed to facilitate discovery, 2 | and have expressed an interest in exploring mediation, no showing is made why a six-month 3 | extension of all deadlines is appropriate here, particularly in light of the parties’ untimely request 4 | only after fact discovery has closed. As counsel for Plaintiff notified counsel for Defendants on 5 | June 4, 2025, that Plaintiff’s deposition needed to be rescheduled, and has declared that additional 6 | time is needed to facilitate discovery, it unquestionably was “apparent” to counsel long before the 7 | parties filed their instant request to amend the scheduling order that an extension was “necessary.” 8 | See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 144(d). 9 The Court acknowledges the parties’ interest in conserving resources while they explore 10 | whether to engage in mediation. But this shared equity does not relieve a party of its duty to 11 | diligently pursue and complete the undertaking of discovery before the operative case management 12 || deadlines expire. Under the circumstances, the Court finds good cause exists to permit the parties 13 || time to complete the deposition of Plaintiff. However, the undersigned reiterates the Court’s 14 | earlier admonition that the case management dates “are considered to be firm and will not be 15 | modified absent a showing of good cause.” (Doc. 15 at 8). Given the lack of good cause proffered 16 || by the parties in support of the instant stipulated request, no extensions aside from the brief 17 || extension of fact discovery granted herein are warranted. 18 Conclusion and Order 19 For the reasons set forth above, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 20 || the scheduling order (Doc. 15) is amended as follows: Non-Expert Discovery Deadline (for the 21 | limited purpose of facilitating the deposition of Plaintiff) continued to July 3, 2025. 22 All other case management dates and provisions of the scheduling order (Doc. 15) remain 23 | unchanged and in full force and effect. Ir IS SO ORDERED. 25 | } Ko Dated: _ June 20, 2025 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28