Del Villar v. Transdev Services, Inc
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to resolve a discovery dispute, which presented Plaintiff's request to amend the scheduling order to allow for two depositions after the discovery deadline had passed. The court denied the motion, finding that the pendency of a summary judgment motion and a joint request to continue pretrial deadlines did not constitute good cause to reopen discovery.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order to allow for depositions of Mr. Mukai and a Rule 30(b)(6) designee.“Regardless of whether this motion is an initial motion to amend the scheduling order or for reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated May 21, 2019, the motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify a scheduling order. The order notes that discovery had already closed and that the only changes in the case posture were the briefing of a summary judgment motion and a joint motion to continue deadlines. The court reasonably concluded that these procedural developments did not demonstrate the diligence or good cause necessary to reopen discovery, particularly given the prior denial of the same relief. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) and the Ninth Circuit's interpretation in Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.) and applies it to the specific facts of the case. The court explicitly addresses the lack of diligence by noting that discovery had already closed and that the new developments (summary judgment briefing and joint motion to continue deadlines) do not constitute good cause to reopen discovery. The reasoning is concise but sufficient to support the denial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ALICIA DEL VILLAR, Case No.: 18-cv-1721-W-MDD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION 12 v. FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE 13 TRANSDEV SERVICES INC., PRESENTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 Defendant. MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER TO 15 ALLOW FOR CERTAIN 16 DEPOSITIONS 17 [ECF NO. 29] 18 19 Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties for determination of a 20 discovery dispute filed on August 30, 2019. (ECF No. 29). The joint motion 21 presents Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order so that Plaintiff 22 may conduct two depositions – the deposition of Mr. Mukai and of a designee 23 under Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., for depositions. On May 8, 2019, the 24 parties filed a Joint Motion presenting Plaintiff’s motion to compel the 25 deposition of Mr. Mukai and a corporate deponent. (ECF No. 19). Discovery 26 closed on March 29, 2019, so the Court construed the motion as seeking an 1 motion as failing to present good cause for the amendment. (ECF No. 21). In 2 essence, then, this motion is for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier Order. 3 Regardless of whether this motion is an initial motion to amend the 4 scheduling order or for reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated May 21, 5 2019, the motion is DENIED. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 8 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard 9 “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 10 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 DISCUSSION 12 The Scheduling Order in this case was filed on October 1, 2018. (ECF 13 No. 14). It allowed for five months of discovery in this non-complex wrongful 14 termination and retaliation case. (Id.). Discovery closed on March 29, 2019. 15 (Id. ¶3). The only change in the posture of the case since the Court’s initial 16 denial of the relief requested by Plaintiff is that Defendant’s summary 17 judgment motion now is fully briefed - only the Defendant’s motion had been 18 filed at the time the Court issued its original order on May 21, 2019 - and the 19 parties have moved jointly to continue the pretrial deadlines in this case until 20 the summary judgment motion is resolved. (ECF No. 30). The pendency of 21 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the joint motion to continue 22 the pretrial deadlines to await the resolution of the motion, provide no basis 23 to amend the scheduling order and reopen discovery to allow Plaintiff to take 24 these depositions. 25 // 26 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiffs motion to amend the scheduling order and allow for Plaintiff 3 depose Mr. Mukai and a corporate designee, as presented in this Joint 4 || Motion, is DENIED. Dated: September 6, 2019 Mitel [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27