Camarena

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6 7 JUSTO CAMARENA, JR., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00441-DAD-BAM 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND ALL PRETRIAL v. DEADLINES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 C R BARD INCORPORATED, et al., (Doc. No. 29) 11 Defendants. 12 Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Discovery and All Pretrial Deadlines. (Doc. No. 29.) According to the joint motion, the parties “have been engaging in serious settlement discussions” and an order “staying” discovery and pretrial deadlines for ninety (90) days. (Id.) The joint motion is therefore construed as a request to modify the Scheduling Order in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Settlement discussions, in and of themselves, are not good cause to modify a scheduling order. See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., 2013 WL 645741, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013). Accordingly, the Court DENIES…