Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MINDY MANSFIELD, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01765-W-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE 14 SUTTELL AND HAMMER, APC, and DISCOVER BANK, 15 [ECF No. 17] Defendants. 16 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order. ECF 19 No. 17. The parties seek an order from the Court continuing the deadline to complete fact 20 discovery by approximately 45 days. Id. 21 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 22 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 23 the judge’s consent”); see also ECF No. 16 at 8 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates 24 [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 25 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 26 request”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, 27 e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 28 1 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 2 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 3 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 4 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 5 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 6 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. 7 … If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). Therefore, “a party demonstrates 8 good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Doe 9 v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-217-JLS-AHG, 2025 WL 2881574, at 10 *1–*2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) (quoting Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 16-cv-1103-PHX- 11 ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018)). 12 Fact discovery in this matter closes on July 2, 2026. ECF No. 16. Here, the parties 13 represent to the Court that they have completed written discovery, and have “tentatively 14 scheduled party and third party depositions through to the July 2, 2026 discovery cutoff 15 date.” ECF No. 17 at 1. However, “[o]ver the last several days, the Parties have engaged 16 in productive settlement discussions that have moved Plaintiff and Defendants positively 17 towards an amicable resolution of this matter.” Id. at 2. Since depositions “are labor 18 intensive, time consuming, and expensive[,]” the parties seek to extend the fact discovery 19 cutoff so they can seriously explore settlement. Id. As such, the parties request an extension 20 of the fact discovery deadline, from July 2, 2026, to August 21, 2026. Id. at 3. The parties 21 also represent to the Court that they “do not anticipate that any expert discovery will be 22 required in this matter [and] do not believe that any commensurate modification of the 23 expert discovery deadlines will be necessary.” Id. at 2. Thus, any extension of the fact 24 discovery deadline would not impact the remaining scheduling order deadlines. Id. 25 The Court appreciates that the parties have worked diligently to complete discovery 26 within the timeframe allotted, and finds good cause to GRANT the parties’ request given 27 their desire to pursue settlement. Thus, all fact discovery shall be completed by all parties 28 by August 21, 2026. The parties shall comply with the procedures set forth in the paragraph 1 governing fact discovery in the original Scheduling Order. See ECF No. 16 at ¶ 2. All other 2 dates, deadlines, and procedures set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16) 3 remain in place. 4 In the parties’ joint motion, they also request an early settlement conference in the 5 matter. ECF No. 17 at 2. Upon due consideration, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request 6 and orders as follows: 7 1. A Settlement Conference shall be conducted on August 5, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. 8 before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard via videoconference. 9 2. The Court expects that all discovery necessary to evaluate settlement will 10 be completed ahead of the settlement conference. 11 3. The Court requires the personal attendance of all named parties, party 12 representatives with full1 settlement authority, including claims adjusters for insured 13 defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for the litigation at the conference. 14 4. Plaintiff must serve on Defendants a written settlement proposal, which must 15 include a specific demand amount, no later than July 23, 2026. The defendants must 16 respond to the plaintiff in writing with a specific offer amount prior to the Meet and Confer 17 discussion. The parties should not file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. 18 Rather, the parties must include their written settlement proposals in their respective 19 Settlement Conference Statements to the Court. 20 21 22 1 The Court reminds the parties that parties and party representatives with full and complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present at the Settlement Conference. 23 Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully explore settlement 24 options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person 25 needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a 26 party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595– 27 97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person who is not present at the 28 Settlement Conference before agreeing to any settlement does not have full authority. 1 5. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person, via videoconference, 2 or by phone no later than July 28, 2026. 3 6. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will be 4 served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than July 31, 2026. The 5 Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov 6 (not filed). The substance of the Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with 7 Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located on the court website at 8 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Mandatory%20Settlem 9 ent%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). 10 7. Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter for 11 the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than July 31, 2026. The 12 Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not 13 filed). Should a party choose to prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement 14 Conference Letter must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement 15 Conference Rules. 16 8. No later than July 31, 2026, each party must submit to the Court via email 17 (not filed) (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, titles, and email addresses of 18 all attendees, as well as a cell phone number for each party’s preferred point of contact. 19 Court staff will then send out the Zoom invitation to all attendees. 20 9. All participants shall display the same level of professionalism during the 21 Settlement Conference and be prepared to devote their full attention to the Settlement 22 Conference as if they were attending in person, i.e., cannot be driving or in a car while 23 speaking to the Court. Because Zoom may quickly deplete the battery of a participant’s 24 device, each participant should ensure that their device is plugged in or that a charging 25 cable is readily available during the video conference. Counsel are advised that although 26 the Settlement Conference will take place on Zoom, all participants shall appear and 27 conduct themselves as if it is proceeding in a courtroom, i.e., all participants must dress in 28 appropriate courtroom attire. l 10. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules 2 ||and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: June 17, 2026 Meurer H. Xela Honorable Allison H. Goddard 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28