Securities and Exchange Commission v. RMR Asset Management Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the SEC and several defendants to extend discovery and pretrial deadlines by approximately three months. The court granted the motion in part, extending the deadlines by a shorter duration than requested, and denied the remainder.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint motion to extend discovery dates granted in part and denied in part“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the joint motion and resets the deadlines as follows” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b)(4), focusing on the parties' diligence. It found that while there was good cause for an extension, the parties had not adequately explained why depositions were not completed after five months of discovery. Therefore, a shorter extension was appropriate. This is a standard exercise of discretion in managing the docket. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a Rule 16 scheduling order (good cause/diligence) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent. It applies this standard to the facts presented (parties' explanation for delay) to reach a reasonable result (partial extension). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural scheduling order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No.: 18cv1895-AJB (LL) COMMISSION, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff, 13 DENYING IN PART JOINT v. STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION 14 OF DISCOVERY DATES RMR ASSET MANAGEMENT 15 COMPANY, et al., [ECF No. 105] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On August 28, 2019, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 20 Defendant Jocelyn Murphy, Defendant Michael Murphy, and Defendant Richard Gounaud 21 filed a joint motion to extend several discovery-related deadlines by approximately two- 22 and-a-half to three months. ECF No. 105. In support, the parties state that (1) Plaintiff’s 23 lead counsel resigned his position at the SEC on August 9, 2019 and new SEC counsel 24 joined the case on August 2, 2019; (2) despite diligently conducting discovery, additional 25 discovery still remains, including the depositions of Defendants; (3) Defendant Gounaud’s 26 answer to the complaint is still outstanding; and (4) Defendant Gounaud’s motion to change 27 venue is currently pending. Id. at 2-3. 28 / / / 1 Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified 2 only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also ECF 3 No. 76 at 6 (stating that dates and times “will not be modified except for good cause 4 shown”). The Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the 5 moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. 6 Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling 7 order may be modified for “good cause” based primarily on diligence of moving party). 8 Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 9 modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 The Court has reviewed the joint motion and finds good cause to extend the 11 deadlines, but not for the length of time requested. The parties have been aware of the 12 Scheduling Order establishing the discovery-related deadlines since April 1, 2019. See 13 ECF No. 76. The parties have not adequately explained why they have not yet completed 14 the depositions of any of the three remaining Defendants, despite about five months of 15 discovery. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the joint 16 motion and resets the deadlines as follows:1 17 Event Current Date New Date 18 Fact-Discovery Deadline September 27, 2019 November 27, 2019 19 Expert Designations October 28, 2019 December 17, 2019 20 Rebuttal Expert Designations November 12, 2019 January 10, 2020 21 Expert Disclosures December 12, 2019 February 10, 2020 22 Contradictory/Rebuttal Disclosures January 10, 2020 February 24, 2020 23 Expert Discovery Deadline February 10, 2020 March 24, 2020 24 Pretrial Motion Deadline March 10, 2010 April 24, 2020 25 26 27 1 Because the amended expert discovery deadline is March 24, 2020, the Court finds it 28 3 Mandatory Settlement Conference May 27, 2020 at July 8, 2020 at Proposed Final Pretrial Conference | July 2, 2020 August 13, 2020 _———= Final Pretrial Conference July 9, 2020 at August 20, 2020 at 13 14 || All other requirements remain as previously set. See ECF No. 76. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: September 9, 2019 XO 17 DEF 18 Honorable Linda Lopez 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28