Lomeli v. FCA U.S. LLC

ORDER RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT

(Doc. 25)

On June 2, 2022, Plaintiffs Luis and Jessica Lomeli (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant FCA U.S. LLC (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). On August 29, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order in this matter. (Doc. 15). Among other things, the Court granted the parties their request for a nine-month period within which to conduct fact discovery (Doc. 14), and ordered the parties to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts by May 30, 2023. (Doc. 15 at 3). Further, the Court noted:

“[t]he dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. Failure to comply with this order may result in the impostion of sanctions.” ( Id. at 6-7).

On January 18, 2023, the parties filed a mid-discovery status report. (Doc. 18). The parties noted they believed discovery was possible to complete within the current deadlines but acknowledged they would request a brief extension no less than one week prior to the close of non-expert discovery, if needed. Id. at 2.

On April 11, 2023, this matter was reassigned from the Honorable District Judge Anthony W. Ishii to the Honorable Ana de Alba. (Doc. 20). On May 18, 2023, Judge de Alba issued a minute order requiring the parties to submit a joint status report regarding this action. (Doc. 24).

On May 31, 2023, the day after the period for undertaking non-expert discovery closed in this action, the parties filed a joint status report. (Doc. 25). Within the joint status report, the parties noted they were unable to complete non-expert discovery due to missing depositions. Id. at 2-3. The parties requested to continue discovery deadlines and represented they were “amenable to a status conference with Judge de Alba to discuss the status of discovery.” Id. at 3.

Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order and the Eastern District's Local Rules, requests to extend discovery deadlines may be made through stipulation. (Doc. 15 at 6-7); L. R. 144. Further, “[c]ounsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court in an action.. .as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent.” L. R. 144(d).

The parties did not comply with their earlier representation to the Court in their middiscovery status report that they would seek any request to continue discovery deadlines at least one week prior to the close of discovery. Instead, the parties filed a joint status report, the day after non-expert discovery had closed, requesting an extension of discovery deadlines from the assigned district judge. (Doc. 25). This, too, was improper, as the supervision of all discovery matters in the Eastern District of California is a duty assigned to the referred magistrate judge. L. R. 302(c).

As the Court currently has no proper request for relief before it, the Court takes the opportunity to remind the parties to review and comply with the scheduling order (Doc. 15) and to refamiliarize themselves with the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.