Kinnee v. TEI Biosciences Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
Plaintiff Michelle Kinnee moved to amend the scheduling order to extend all remaining case deadlines, including the expert disclosure deadline, by 31 days, arguing that Defendants' late document production required additional review time. The Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff failed to comply with local chambers rules by filing on the deadline date and failed to demonstrate good cause or reasonable diligence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for modifying a Rule 16 scheduling order (good cause and reasonable diligence) and correctly noted that the moving party bears the burden of showing why the motion could not have been filed earlier. The court's reliance on the local chambers rule regarding motions filed on the deadline date is procedurally sound, and the finding that Plaintiff failed to explain the 98-day delay in filing the motion despite knowing of the late production in May supports the denial for lack of diligence. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a Rule 16 scheduling order and applies it to the facts. The court properly notes that the moving party must show good cause and reasonable diligence. The court's additional reliance on the local chambers rule regarding the timing of the motion filing is a valid procedural ground for denial, especially given the plaintiff's failure to explain the delay. The reasoning is concise but sufficient to support the result.
Opinion
1 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 MICHELLE KINNEE, Case No.: 22-cv-604-JLS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 TEI BIOSCIENCES INC.; 15 INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION; LIFESCIENCES [DKT. NO. 127] 16 SALES LLC; and DOES 1 through 17 50, inclusive, 18 Defendant. 19 20 On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion captioned “Motion to Amend 21 Scheduling Order by 31 Days Given Defendants’ Non-Compliance with Scheduling 22 Order.” Dkt. No. 127. Plaintiff seeks to continue all of the remaining case 23 deadlines set forth in the Court’s March 20, 2025 Order Granting Unopposed 24 Motion to Continue Deadlines and Second Amended Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 25 126].1 Id. at 1. In support, Plaintiff argues that the extension is necessary because 26 27 1 Including the deadline for expert disclosures which is currently September 4, 28 1 Defendant failed to complete its document production by April 29, 2025 as ordered 2 and now Plaintiff needs additional time to review the documents that were 3 produced as late as May 30, 2025. Id. at 1-2. Defendant Integra responds that 4 Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as untimely and procedurally improper. Id. at 5 3-4. 6 Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be 7 modified only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure 16(b)(4). The Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the “reasonable 9 diligence” of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 10 (9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 11 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for “good cause” 12 based primarily on diligence of moving party). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry 13 is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. 14 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court 15 also may consider the “existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 16 modification . . . .” Id. 17 As an initial matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with this 18 Court’s Chambers rules. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on the date of the 19 deadline she seeks to modify. As stated in Judge Leshner’s Chambers Rules, 20 “[m]otions filed on the date of the deadline sought to be modified will be denied 21 unless it is apparent on the face of the motion that the request could not have been 22 made earlier for reasons not within counsel’s control.” Leshner Chambers Rules 23 III(D). It is not apparent on the face of the motion that Plaintiff could not have 24 brought the motion earlier and, despite being aware of the allegedly late production 25 since at least May, 30, 2025, Plaintiff does not provide any reason or explanation 26 for why this motion could not have been brought sooner. Dkt. No. 127. 27 The Court also finds that Plaintiff has not provided good cause for her 28 request or been reasonably diligent as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 16. Plaintiff provides no explanation for waiting until the expert disclosure deadline 2 \I for filing the instant motion that is based on an allegedly untimely document 3 production that occurred ninety-eight days ago on May 30, 2025. Accordingly, 4 || Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is DENIED. 5 IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: September 8, 2025 iste 7 Tho! lohor 8 ‘Hon. DavidD.LeshnerSCS™S 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28