Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM DONALD PIXLER II, Case No.: 24cv1752-JAH (MSB) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [ECF NO. 60] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Now pending before the Court is the parties’ sixth joint motion to modify dates in 20 the Scheduling Order. (See ECF No. 60 (“Sixth Joint Motion”).) On November 6, 2025, 21 the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and 22 extended “[t]he deadline to file any motion to join other parties, to amend the 23 pleadings, or to file additional pleadings” to December 19, 2025. (See ECF No. 33 at 2.) 24 On December 5, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ Second Joint Motion to Modify the 25 Scheduling Order and once again extended “[t]he deadline to file any motion to join 26 other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings.” (See ECF No. 36 27 at 2.) On April 16, 2026, the Court granted the parties’ Third Joint Motion to Modify the 28 Scheduling Order and extended all remaining deadlines by approximately sixty days. 1 (See ECF No. 44 at 2–3.) On May 28, 2026, the Court granted the parties’ Fourth Joint 2 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and extended “[t]he deadline to complete fact 3 discovery.” (See ECF No. 51 at 2.) On July 21, 2026, the Court granted the parties’ Fifth 4 Joint Motion and extended “[t]he deadline to designate rebuttal experts.” (See ECF No. 5 59 at 2.) In the parties’ Fifth Joint Motion, they represented that additional extensions 6 of the discovery deadlines were not anticipated. (See ECF No. 58 at 1.) In reliance on 7 that representation, the Court granted the Fifth Joint Motion. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 In their Sixth Joint Motion, the parties explain that yet another extension is 10 necessary because “[two] more critical depositions need to be completed.” (ECF No. 60 11 at 1.) “This request could not have been made sooner because Plaintiff’s counsel just 12 completed a [three] week conspiracy to commit murder trial . . . and is just now able to 13 attend to other matters.” (Id. at 1–2.) Accordingly, the parties request to extend the 14 deadlines (1) to designate rebuttal experts from August 10, 2026, to August 27, 2026; 15 (2) to provide expert disclosures from August 18, 2026, to September 2, 2026; and (3) to 16 provide rebuttal expert disclosures from September 2, 2026, to September 16, 2026. 17 (See id.) 18 The parties have been advised time and again that Section V of Magistrate Judge 19 Michael S. Berg’s Civil Chambers Rules1 provide: “Whether made by joint motion or ex 20 parte application, any request to continue [a] . . . scheduling order deadline shall be 21 made in writing no less than seven (7) calendar days before the affected date.” The 22 first affected date here is August 10, 2026. (See ECF No. 59 at 2.) The parties filed their 23 Sixth Joint Motion on August 24, 2026, which is two weeks after the first affected date. 24 Thus, the Sixth Joint Motion is untimely. 25 / / 26 27 1 Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg’s Civil Chambers Rules are available at www.casd.uscourts.gov/ 28 1 Scheduling orders “permit the court and the parties to deal with cases in a 2 ||thorough and orderly manner, and [the courts] must be allowed to enforce them.” 3 Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005). This Court has 4 || an obligation to manage its docket efficiently and to ensure that the cases before it 5 || proceed toward resolution in a timely manner. Granting a sixth continuance on the 6 || present showing would undermine the purposes underlying Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. Courts 7 || routinely reject busy trial schedules as a basis for relief. Indeed, “[a]ttorneys have a 8 || duty to the Court and to their clients to ensure that they accept a caseload that enables 9 || them to meet litigation deadlines.” Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 627 F. Supp. 3d 10 || 1172, 1179 (D. Nev. 2022). 11 Ill. CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Sixth Joint Motion. All deadlines 13 || and guidance set forth in the Court’s April 16, 2026, Order [ECF No. 44] remain 14 || unchanged. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||Dated: August 26, 2026 ao 18 Honorable Michael S. Berg 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28