Hipschman v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to extend the deadline for completing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and to continue expert discovery and motion filing deadlines by 45 days. The court granted the extension for the deposition but denied the request to continue the other scheduling order dates, allowing only a specific deadline for supplemental expert reports.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motion to extend the deadline for the deposition of the Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) witness for categories 10, 13, and 18.“For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motion. The deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for categories 10, 13, and 18 must occur on or before December 19, 2024.” | agree with court The court found good cause based on the parties' agreement that the witness needed additional time to prepare after the initial deposition attempt. This follows the standard that a scheduling order may be modified for good cause, and the record recited (the prior extension and the witness's need for preparation time) supports the finding. |
Denying the joint motion to continue the expert disclosures, supplemental expert disclosures, expert discovery cutoff, and motion filing deadline by approximately 45 days.“The Court finds that the parties have not shown good cause to continue all of the remaining dates by approximately forty-five days. Accordingly, all dates remain as previously including expert disclosures on December 6, 2024.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard from Rule 16(b)(4) and found the parties failed to demonstrate that the deadlines could not be met despite diligence. While the order does not detail the specific diligence analysis, the denial of a blanket 45-day extension in favor of maintaining the existing schedule is a defensible exercise of discretion, especially given the court's alternative provision for supplemental reports. |
Setting a deadline of January 6, 2025, for experts to supplement or amend reports based on remaining Rule 30(b)(6) testimony.“If any expert wants to supplement or amend his or her expert report based on the testimony provided in the remaining Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, they must do so by January 6, 2025.” | agree with court This is a procedural accommodation to address the specific need raised by the plaintiffs regarding expert review of testimony, without granting the broader 45-day extension. It is a reasonable management of the discovery process. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for modifying a scheduling order (Rule 16(b)(4) and the 'good cause' requirement). It applies this standard to the specific facts presented: granting the deposition extension where the need for witness preparation was clear, and denying the broader 45-day extension where the parties did not sufficiently demonstrate that the existing deadlines could not be met despite diligence. The court provided a specific alternative for expert supplementation, addressing the underlying concern without disrupting the overall schedule. The reasoning is sound and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 22CV0903-AJB (BLM) 11 CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN; ALEXANDER HIPSCHMAN, 12 ORDER DENYING IN PART AND Plaintiffs, GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO 13 EXTEND DEADLINE RE RULE 30(b)(6) v. WITNESS AND CONTINUE EXPERT 14 DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND RELATED COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 DATES Defendants. 16 [ECF No. 129]
17 18 19 Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion and Request to Extend Deposition 20 of Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) Witness and Continue Expert Discovery Cutoffs and other related 21 Dates in Scheduling Order. See Mot., ECF No. 129. For the reasons set forth below, the motion 22 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified only 25 “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. 26 P.”) 16(b)(4). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 27 modification.” 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 1 diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Lien v. City of San Diego, 2022 WL 1143548, at 2 *1 (S.D. Cal., March 9, 2022) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). If the moving party fails to 3 demonstrate diligence, “the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. To establish “good 4 cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must show that even with the exercise 5 of “due diligence,” they still cannot meet an order's timetable. Citizens Development Corporation, 6 Inc. v. County of San Diego, 2019 WL 13166661, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2019) (quoting 7 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 8 DISCUSSION 9 1. Deposition of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) Witness – Categories 10, 13, and 18 10 The parties seek an order continuing the deadline for the County to “re-produce” its Rule 11 30(b)(6) witness relating to categories 10, 13, and 18 in the Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition to 12 December 20, 2024. Mot. at 2. On October 15, 2024, the Court granted the parties motion to 13 extend the deadline to complete the Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition as to 14 categories 10, 13, and 18 to November 6, 2024. ECF No. 117. On November 6, 2024, 15 Defendants produced their Rule 30(b)(6) witness for a deposition relating to categories 10, 13, 16 and 18. Id. The parties met and conferred following the deposition and agreed that the witness 17 needed additional time to prepare for the deposition and therefore, they “agreed to reconvene 18 the deposition at a later time” to allow the witness additional time to review documents and 19 prepare for the deposition. Id. As a result, the parties seek another extension of time to permit 20 the completion of the deposition of the Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition as to 21 categories 10, 13, and 18. For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motion. The 22 deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for categories 10, 13, and 18 must occur on or before 23 December 19, 2024. 24 2. Request to Continue Scheduling Order Dates 25 The parties also seek an order modifying the Scheduling Order by continuing the 26 scheduled deadlines for expert disclosures, supplemental expert disclosures, expert discovery 27 cutoff, and motion filing deadline by approximately forty-five (45) days. Id. In the motion, 1 || materials that are the subject of a separate motion to compel currently before this Court. Id. at 2 Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 125. Plaintiffs also contend that their experts need additional 3 to review the testimony of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for categories 10, 13, and 18 4 || referenced above, as well as the deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for categories 2, 6, 9, 5 and 16 which the Court previously ruled must take place within ten (10) days of the ruling 6 the pending motion to compel. Mot. at 3; Nov. 22, 2024 Order at 2, ECF No. 127. 7 The Court finds that the parties have not shown good cause to continue all of the 8 remaining dates by approximately forty-five days. Accordingly, all dates remain as previously 9 including expert disclosures on December 6, 2024. See ECF No. 119. If any expert wants 10 ||to supplement or amend his or her expert report based on the testimony provided in the 11 remaining Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, they must do so by January 6, 2025. 12 13 ||Dated: 12/5/2024 Sy , be He ol 14 Hon. Barbara L. Major 15 United States Maqistrate Judde 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28