McKnight v. Snopes Media Group, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael S. Berg (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to continue an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference scheduled for September 13, 2024, citing a professional hardship due to an urgent work assignment in Nashville. The Court granted the motion, finding good cause to continue the ENE to September 20, 2024, while maintaining the requirement for in-person attendance.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's ex parte motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation is granted.“Finding good cause, the Court GRANTS the Motion and CONTINUES the ENE to September 20, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard typically associated with scheduling modifications under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) or local chambers rules. The plaintiff provided specific facts regarding a professional conflict (urgent assignment in Nashville) that would cause significant career and financial repercussions. The court balanced this against its prior denial of a remote attendance request, maintaining the in-person requirement but allowing a brief delay to accommodate the conflict. This is a standard exercise of case management authority. |
The Court denies the need for Defendant's opposition to the ex parte motion.“the Court does not believe that Defendant’s opposition is necessary to on the Motion here, especially since the ENE is only two days away.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage its docket and procedural requirements, citing Dietz v. Bouldin. Given the short timeline (2 days) and the nature of the request (a brief continuance for a specific, verifiable conflict), waiving the opposition is a reasonable procedural decision to ensure efficiency. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a routine case management decision. It correctly identifies the standard (good cause), applies it to the specific facts presented (professional hardship), and cites appropriate authority for the court's inherent power to manage proceedings. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a scheduling order.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL WILLIAM MCKNIGHT, Case No.: 24cv762-RBM (MSB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX 13 v. PARTE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION [ECF NO. 14 SNOPES MEDIA GROUP, INC., 10] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff Daniel William McKnight (“Plaintiff”) filed an ex 19 parte motion to continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) conference scheduled for 20 September 13, 2024. (ECF No. 10 (“Motion”).) In it, Plaintiff explains that attending the 21 ENE in person would be a great hardship since he received “an urgent assignment from 22 the New York Post” that required him to be in Nashville, Tennessee for at least two 23 more days from the date he filed his motion. (ECF No. 10-2 at 2.) He further explained 24 that the assignment is a “significant opportunity . . . both professionally and financially, . 25 . . [which he could not] simply abandon without repercussions to [his] career and 26 employment.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel explains that he made several attempts to confer 27 with counsel for Defendant Snopes Media Group, Inc. (“Defendant”), but Defendant’s 1 Although Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg’s Chambers Rules ordinarily allow the 2 || opposing party to an ex parte motion to file an opposition by 5:00 p.m. on the following 3 || business day, the Court does not believe that Defendant’s opposition is necessary to 4 on the Motion here, especially since the ENE is only two days away. See Honorable 5 || Michael S. Berg U.S. Magistrate Judge Civil Chambers Rule VII. “[D]istrict courts have 6 inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the 7 || efficient and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin., 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016). 8 September 9, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff's earlier request to attend the ENE 9 |lremotely. (ECF No. 9.) The Court explained that in person attendance at ENEs is highly 10 |/important and leave to attend remotely would not be granted except for extraordinary 11 || circumstances. (Id. at 2.) Although Plaintiff framed his original request differently from 12 || the instant Motion, the Court maintains that he should still appear in person at the ENE. 13 || Nonetheless, the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's situation and finds that good cause 14 || exists to continue the ENE for a brief period that will ensure Plaintiff is able to attend in 15 || person. 16 Finding good cause, the Court GRANTS the Motion and CONTINUES the ENE to 17 ||September 20, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. The Pre-ENE status conference calls set for September 18 || 12, 2024 will move forward as planned, and the Court will discuss with the parties 19 || whether scheduling adjustments should be made. All other guidelines in the Court’s 20 Order [ECF No. 5] remain unchanged. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 ||Dated: September 11, 2024 TZ. 24 4 L <—{|— 3s Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28