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 and ESI discovery conference deadlines by thirty days. The court granted the motion, finding good cause, and set the new deadlines for March 14, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue granted“Having considered the parties’ joint motion and supporting declaration, the Court finds good cause, GRANTS the motion, and approves the parties’ stipulation.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for modifying a scheduling order. The order cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, *Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.*, which establishes that good cause is primarily determined by the diligence of the party seeking the extension. The court found good cause based on the parties' joint motion and supporting declaration, which is a permissible exercise of discretion for a magistrate judge handling scheduling matters. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate binding authority for the standard of review. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' decision because it does not explicitly articulate the factual basis for the 'good cause' finding beyond referencing the 'supporting declaration.' It does not state whether the parties were diligent or why the original deadline could not be met despite diligence, which are the core inquiries under *Johnson*. While the result is defensible given the joint nature of the motion, the reasoning skips the specific application of the diligence factor to the facts.
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. 22] 14 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 13, 2025, the parties filed a “Joint Moton to Continue the Dates Set in 19 the Court’s Scheduling Order.” (ECF No. 22.) They describe their discovery effort to 20 date, and ask the Court to continue the deadline to complete fact discovery by thirty days 21 so that they could complete remaining witness depositions. (ECF No. 22-1 at 2–4.) The 22 parties further state that they “are actively meeting and conferring on discovery issues 23 relating to electronically stored information (‘ESI’),” and ask the Court to continue by 24 thirty days Plaintiff’s deadline to request an informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). 25 (Id.) 26 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 27 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the 28 diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial 1 || schedule if 1t cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 2 ||extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 3 || Gnternal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If that party was not diligent, the 4 || inquiry should end.” Id. 5 Having considered the parties’ joint motion and supporting declaration, the Court 6 || finds good cause, GRANTS the motion, and approves the parties’ stipulation. 7 || Accordingly, the remaining depositions must be completed by March 14, 2025. 8 || Additionally, Plaintiff's deadline to request an IDC relating to ESI discovery is 9 || CONTINUED until March 14, 2025. All other deadlines and requirements from the 10 || Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Procedures remain 11 |}unchanged. (See ECF No. 12.) 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 13, 2025 LY 15 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28