Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to extend case management deadlines due to a change in mediation circumstances and an expert's medical issues. The court granted the motion in part, extending expert discovery and Daubert motion deadlines, but denied the request to extend fact discovery as it was not properly included in the motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint motion to extend case management deadlines granted in part“The Court appreciates the parties thorough joint motion and that the parties have been working together, and finds good cause to GRANT IN PART the joint motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b)(4) and Rule 6(b). The parties provided specific reasons (mediation rescheduling due to a third-party withdrawal and expert medical issues) that constitute good cause. The court appropriately limited the relief to the specific deadlines requested and supported by the stated reasons, while noting that fact discovery was not requested for extension in this specific motion. |
Fact discovery deadline remains unchanged“The Court first notes that the parties have not requested an extension of the fact discovery deadline in the instant motion. As such, the fact discovery deadline remains unchanged.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motion did not explicitly request an extension of the fact discovery deadline, despite the parties' footnote suggesting a desire to adjust remaining dates. The court adhered to the specific requests made in the motion body. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (good cause), cites the relevant rules and case law, and applies the standard to the specific facts presented (mediation rescheduling and expert medical issues). The court's decision to deny the implicit request for fact discovery extension because it was not explicitly requested in the motion is a reasonable procedural interpretation, though the parties' footnote suggested a broader intent. The order is clear and directly addresses the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO., Case No.: 3:23-cv-01847-CAB-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND CERTAIN CASE MANAGEMENT 14 ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, DEADLINES INC., 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 38] 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order. ECF 18 No. 38. The parties seek an order from the Court extending certain case management 19 deadlines by approximately two weeks to one month. Id. 20 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 21 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); 22 see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 23 court may, for good cause, extend the time”); see also Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request 24 for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). Courts have broad 25 discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth 26 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. Hansen, No. 2:11cv492- 27 GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). The good cause standard 28 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons 1 for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the 2 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification ... If that party was not diligent, the 3 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 4 Here, the parties represent to the Court that they had a private mediation scheduled 5 for December 5, 2024, with Richard A. Huver of Judicate West, but needed to continue 6 that mediation due to the manufacturer, Midea, withdrawing its acceptance of the tender of 7 defense on December 2, 2024. Id. at 3. With Midea no longer providing defense or 8 indemnification, Defendant’s ability to enter into the private mediation with settlement 9 authority was significantly impacted. Id. The parties have rescheduled their mediation with 10 Mr. Huver to January 2, 2025. Id. at 4. Additionally, the parties represent to the Court that 11 expert Brian Spiegel is experiencing medical issues that require immediate attention, and 12 request that the expert discovery deadline of December 13, 2024, be extended so he can 13 tend to his medical needs, and also so the parties can focus their efforts on settlement 14 instead of litigation. Id. at 4. 15 The Court appreciates the parties thorough joint motion and that the parties have 16 been working together, and finds good cause to GRANT IN PART1 the joint motion. As 17 such, the Court orders as follows: 18 1. By January 6, 2025, the parties must lodge via email (not filed) (to 19 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) a Joint Status Report regarding the outcome of the 20 private mediation or, if unknown while a mediator’s proposal is being considered, a date 21 by which the parties will know the outcome of the private mediation. 22 23 1 The parties note that, “[i]f granted, such request will affect other case management dates. 24 Accordingly, the Parties also request to adjust the remaining Scheduling Order as 25 appropriate to coincide with the revised fact discovery deadline.” ECF No. 38 at 4. The Court first notes that the parties have not requested an extension of the fact discovery 26 deadline in the instant motion. As such, the fact discovery deadline remains unchanged. 27 See ECF No. 29 at 1. The instant request included solely the expert discovery deadline and the joint status report deadline. ECF No. 38. At this time, upon due consideration, the Court 28 1 2. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by January 10, 2025. 2 || The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing 3 || fact discovery. See ECF No. 23 at 3-4. 4 3. All Daubert motions shall be filed on or before January 21, 2025. Counsel 5 || for the moving party shall set the motion date on the date that is 35 days from the date the 6 ||motion is filed. Parties intending to file a motion shall not contact Judge Bencivengo’s 7 chambers for a hearing date. The parties should review Judge Bencivengo’s chambers rules 8 ||for civil cases for the additional requirements for noticed motions before Judge 9 || Bencivengo. 10 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, if an opposing party fails to file opposition 11 ||papers in the time and manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may 12 || constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the 13 ||Court. Accordingly, all parties are ordered to abide by the terms of Local Rule 7.1.e.2 or 14 || otherwise face the prospect of any pretrial motion being granted as an unopposed motion 15 || pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c. 16 4. All other dates, deadlines, and procedures set forth in the Court’s First 17 || Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 23) and the Court’s Order Following Discovery 18 || Conference (ECF No. 29) remain in place. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: December 5, 2024 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28