MORRISON ENGLAND JR., District Judge
Before the Court is the Estate of Sherryn Haynes' ("Plaintiff") Motion to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Sherryn Haynes commenced this action in December of 2006. The Complaint alleges that R.H. Dyck, Inc. and other named defendants ("Defendants") committed numerous violations of 35 United States Code section 292. The Complaint seeks recovery of statutory fines, costs of suit, and interest.
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).
On June 26, 2007, this Court entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order. On June 3, 2007, Ms. Haynes filed objections to the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Those objections were never ruled on. On July 6, 2007, Ms. Haynes passed away and on July 20, 2007 this Court entered a Minute Order staying the matter for 90 days. The current Plaintiff, Ms. Haynes' Estate, was substituted into this action on October 12, 2007.
Although the temporary stay lifted by its own terms after 90 days, as of the date of this Order, the Court's Case Management/Electronic Case Files system ("CM/ECF") shows that the case is stayed. Plaintiff now argues that the Pretrial Scheduling Order is not final, that the parties should submit a Joint Status Report, and that the Court should issue an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order.
ANALYSIS
Generally, the Court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling order within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). The scheduling order "controls the subsequent course of the action" unless modified by the Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a showing of "good cause," Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), but orders "following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992).
Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify the pretrial schedule "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's notes (1983 amendment);Id. Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. Id. Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.
This Court finds no merit in Plaintiff's argument that the Pretrial Scheduling Order is not final. Plaintiffs objections are summarily denied for Plaintiff's failure to pursue them. Plaintiff was a party to this action for almost six months when this motion was filed and the stay lifted by its own terms in October 2007. Plaintiff was not diligent in bringing these objections to the Court's attention.
However, given that CM/ECF did not reflect that the stay should have lifted, and given the several changes in parties and attorneys during the stay, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: Discovery Completion Date August 14, 2008 Disclosure of Expert October 14, 2008 Witnesses Dispositive Motion Hearing December 19, 2008 Deadline Final Pretrial Conference July 17, 2009, 9:00 a.m. Joint Final Pretrial June 26, 2009 Conference Statement Jury Trial August 31, 2009, 9:00 a.m. Trial Exhibits delivered to August 24, 2009, by 3:00 p.m. the Courtroom Clerk, Stephanie Deutsch Additionally, the Temporary Stay entered on July 20, 2007 is hereby lifted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Pretrial Scheduling Order entered June 26, 2007, shall be amended as set forth above. The temporary stay entered July 20, 2007 is lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.