Hoge

MEMORANDUM **

In Case No. 03-15932, Henry and Dona Hoge challenge the district court’s decisions regarding case management, the enforceability of the indemnity agreement, and the cross-motions for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

In Case No. 04-15383, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company challenges the district court’s conclusion that it cannot attach assets necessary to cover the Hoges’ payment of pre- and post-judgment attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 *120 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

I. Scheduling Order

The Hoges failed to meet the “good cause” requirement mandated for a change to the scheduling deadlines. 2 The record supports the district court’s findings that the Hoges did not diligently pursue discovery. Thus, the district court properly declined to amend the scheduling order.

II. Enforceability of the Indemnity Agreement

The indemnity agreement was not oppressive. 4 Because unconscionability requires procedural and substantive unconscionability, the indemnity agreement is therefore not unconscionable.

As for the Hoges’ argument regarding the illegality of…