Hendrickson v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. et al

1
23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK HENDRICKSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
TO ACCOMMODATE MEDIATION
ON FEBRUARY 12, 2026
(Doc. No. 82)
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Accommodate
Mediation on February 12, 2026. (Doc. No. 82.) The parties seek an approximately 60-day
continuance of all remaining dates and deadlines from the Court’s February 10, 2025
Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings (Doc. No. 53).
(Doc. No. 82 at 4–5.) In support of the joint motion, the parties state:
Immediately upon completion of their written discovery, deposition efforts,
and the closing of the factual record in this matter on December 17, 2025, the
Parties engaged in substantive settlement discussions. To that end, the Parties
have agreed to mediate and have reserved the first-available date with
mediator Kevin T. Barnes of February 12, 2026.
(Id. at 3.) This is the parties’ eighth request to continue discovery- and/or pre-trial-related
deadlines. (Doc. Nos. 58; 60; 65; 67; 71; 74; 77; 80.)
Case 3:23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW Document 83 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence
of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 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.’” Id. (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment). “If the party seeking
the modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should
not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
Following the parties’ December 12, 2025 Joint Motion to Continue Deadline to
Disclose Identity of Experts (Doc. No. 80), Magistrate Judge Brian J. White held a status
conference with the parties “to discuss various deadlines in the case, namely the
Dispositive and Class Certification Motion Deadlines currently set for February 5, 2026
and February 6, 2026, respectively.” (Doc. No. 81.) The Court additionally stated “[n]o
further discovery or expert related extensions will be granted absent extraordinary
circumstances.” (Id.)
Such circumstances are not present here. It appears that the parties waited until after
“completion of their written discovery, deposition efforts, and the closing of the factual
record in this matter on December 17, 2025,” to “engage[] in substantive settlement
discussions.” (Doc. No. 82 at 3.) Nothing prevented the parties from initiating substantive
settlement discussions before December 17, 2025. Indeed, the parties had an early neutral
evaluation conference before Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg on January 31, 2025. (Doc.
No. 52.) This apparent delay presumably contributed to a “first-available date with
mediator Kevin T. Barnes” (Doc. No. 82 at 3) that falls after the parties’ February 5, 2026
dispositive motion deadline. The parties have known of this pending deadline since
February 10, 2025, and were reminded of it on December 15, 2025. (Doc. Nos. 53; 81.)
Based on these facts, the Court concludes that good cause is not present to amend
the February 10, 2025 Scheduling Order to continue all remaining deadlines by 60 days.
Case 3:23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW Document 83 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly
disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610.
Insofar as the parties have now “agreed to mediate” (Doc. No. 82 at 3), the Court
notes that the parties may engage in such settlement proceedings before Magistrate Judge
White. The parties may contact Magistrate Judge White’s chambers to schedule a
mediation session.
Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Accommodate
Mediation on February 12, 2026, is DENIED. (Doc. No. 82.) The pending deadlines of the
February 10, 2025 Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 53) remain in full effect. No further
continuances will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2026
Case 3:23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW Document 83 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3