Scripps Highland M/I Development, L.P. v. ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved to continue the fact discovery deadline from December 19, 2024, to February 28, 2025, citing witness schedules. The court granted the motion, extending the deadline while noting the parties failed to show diligence or comply with local chambers rules regarding last-minute motions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Fact Discovery Deadline granted“For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED. The fact discovery cutoff is extended to February 28, 2025.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard from Rule 16(b)(4) and *Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations*, finding that the parties failed to demonstrate diligence because the motion was filed on the deadline date and did not explain the inability to meet the original deadline. However, the court exercised its discretion to grant the extension anyway, likely due to the joint nature of the motion and the specific request to allow simultaneous fact and expert discovery. While the court noted the failure to meet the standard, granting the motion is a discretionary act that is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion; given the joint nature and the specific accommodation requested, the decision is defensible. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order (Rule 16(b)(4) and *Johnson*). It accurately applies the facts to the standard, noting the lack of diligence and the violation of local chambers rules. However, it reaches a result (granting the motion) that contradicts its own application of the standard (which would 'ordinarily compel denial'). This is a common exercise of judicial discretion in scheduling matters, particularly for joint motions, but the reasoning is slightly disjointed as it grants relief despite finding the standard was not met. It is defensible but skips the explicit justification for why 'good cause' existed despite the lack of diligence, other than the joint nature and specific discovery plan.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCRIPPS HIGHLAND M/I Case No.: 23-cv-1571-WQH-DDL DEVELOPMENT, L.P., a California 12 limited partnership, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO CONTINUE FACT Plaintiff, DISCOVERY DEADLINE 14 v. 15 [Dkt. No. 63] 16 TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; and DOES 17 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 The Scheduling Order in this case requires that “[a]ll fact discovery shall be 23 completed by all parties by December 19, 2024.” Dkt. No. 52 at 2. On that same date, the 24 parties jointly moved to continue that deadline until February 28, 2025. Dkt. No. 63 at 2. 25 The parties represent they “have considered and discussed the current Scheduling Order’s 26 deadline” and “[d]ue to parties’ and their respective witnesses’ schedules, the parties do 27 not believe they will be able to conclude written discovery and fact witness depositions by 28 December 20 [sic], 2024.” Id. l “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 2 ||Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard primarily considers the 3 || diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 4 ||975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).' “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if 5 cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Jd. 6 || “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Jd. 7 The joint motion is silent as to the parties’ apparent inability to timely complete fact 8 || discovery by the December 19 deadline. As such, there is no showing of diligence by the 9 || parties. Moreover, the undersigned’s Chambers Rule § III.E provides that motions to 10 |}extend, amend, continue, or vacate deadlines that are “filed on the date of the deadline 11 sought to be modified will be denied unless it is apparent on the face of the motion that the 12 ||request could not have been made earlier for reasons not within counsel’s control.” The 13 motion, filed on the December 19 deadline, ignores this rule. 14 The parties’ failure to establish diligence and comply with the Chambers Rules 15 || ordinarily would compel denial of their motion. However, given that the parties seek only 16 |/to continue the fact discovery deadline and wish to engage in simultaneous fact and expert 17 || discovery, the Court will grant the requested extension with the express admonition that all 18 || other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 52) remain unchanged. 19 For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED. The fact 20 || discovery cutoff is extended to February 28, 2025. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: December 20, 2024 Chil habe 24 Hon.DavidD.Leshner 95 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 ! All citations, internal quotation marks, and subsequent history are omitted, and emphasis is added, unless otherwise noted.