Nozot v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Lupe Rodriguez (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to continue the fact discovery deadline by 21 days to complete previously noticed depositions. The court granted the motion, finding good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), and set the new deadline for February 14, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue granted“Having considered the parties’ joint motion and supporting declarations, the Court finds good cause, GRANTS the motion, and approves the parties’ stipulation.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for modifying a scheduling order (Rule 16(b)(4) and the Ninth Circuit's 'good cause' test focusing on diligence). The parties jointly requested the extension for a specific, reasonable reason (completing noticed depositions), and the court found good cause. The decision is procedurally correct and follows from the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 16(b)(4)) and the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations) for modifying scheduling orders. It applies the 'good cause' standard to the facts presented (joint motion, need to complete noticed depositions) and reaches a defensible result. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine scheduling order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID NOZOT, Case No.: 24cv1171-DMS(LR)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO CONTINUE [ECF NO. 19] 14 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On January 24, 2025, the parties filed a “Joint Moton to Continue the Dates Set in 19 the Court’s Scheduling Order.” (ECF No. 19.) The parties seek to continue the deadline 20 to complete fact discovery by approximately twenty-one days from January 24, 2025, 21 until February 14, 2025. (ECF No. 19-1 at 2–4.) In support, the parties state that they 22 require additional time to complete previously-noticed witness depositions. (Id. at 3.) 23 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 24 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the 25 diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial 26 schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 27 extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 28 1 || Gnternal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If that party was not diligent, the 2 inquiry should end.” Id. 3 Having considered the parties’ joint motion and supporting declarations, the Court 4 ||finds good cause, GRANTS the motion, and approves the parties’ stipulation. 5 || Accordingly, the remaining depositions must be completed by February 14, 2025. All 6 || other deadlines and requirements from the scheduling order remain unchanged. (See 7 || ECF No. 12.) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 24, 2025 10 LY 11 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 1 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28