Amaraut v. Sprint/United Management Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to continue the deadline to file motions to compel discovery responses until after a scheduled mediation in March 2020. The court denied the request for a four-month extension but granted a 30-day extension for disputes regarding the defendant's responses, and issued a second amended case management order setting new deadlines for discovery and class certification motions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Deadline to File Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is granted in part and denied in part.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion, and orders that any motion to compel Defendant’s discovery responses shall be filed no later than October 30, 2019.” | agree with court The court correctly applied its inherent authority to manage the docket and set discovery deadlines. The decision to deny the extension until March 2020 (over four months) while granting a 30-day extension is a reasonable exercise of discretion to balance the parties' interest in mediation against the need for case progression. The refusal to extend deadlines for the plaintiff's non-existent responses is legally sound as it avoids issuing an advisory opinion on a hypothetical dispute. |
Second Amended Case Management Order is issued, setting deadlines for motions to amend, phase one discovery, expert disclosures, and class certification.“Additionally, based on the parties’ agreement before the Court during the status conference, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed no later than October 30, 2019.” | agree with court The court is authorized to issue case management orders under Rule 16. The deadlines set are consistent with the parties' representations and the court's management of the litigation schedule. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the parties' request, applies the court's discretion to manage the schedule, and cites appropriate authority for refusing to rule on hypothetical disputes regarding the plaintiff's discovery responses. The reasoning for denying the long extension is stated clearly (inappropriate to grant over four months).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VLADIMIR AMARAUT, on behalf of Case No.: 3:19-cv-411-WQH-AHG himself and all others similarly situated, 12 et al., ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs, (1) GRANTING IN PART AND 14 v. DENYING IN PART JOINT 15 MOTION TO CONTINUE SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION TO 16 COMPANY, COMPEL DISCOVERY 17 Defendant. RESPONSES; and 18 (2) ISSUING SECOND AMENDED 19 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 20 [ECF No. 39] 21 22 Before the Court is Plaintiff Vladimir Amaraut (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant 23 Sprint/United Management Company’s (“Defendant”) Joint Motion to Continue Deadline 24 to File Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. ECF No. 39. In light of the pending 25 motion, the Court held a telephonic status conference on September 25, 2019. ECF No. 41. 26 Plaintiff served his first set of written discovery requests on June 25, 2019, and 27 Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s requests on August 16, 2019. ECF No. 39-1 at 3. Under 28 the Court’s 45-Day Rule (see Chmb.R. at 3), the parties must bring any discovery dispute 1 regarding Defendant’s responses to the Court’s attention by September 30, 2019. The 2 parties have represented to the Court that they plan to pursue mediation in this case. Id. 3 The parties also represent that they are currently conferring regarding potential stipulation 4 to an amended complaint that would include additional Rule 23 classes and state law 5 claims. Id. Accordingly, the parties have jointly requested an extension of this deadline. Id. 6 They have requested that the Court suspend its motion to compel deadlines regarding 7 Defendant’s discovery responses until the parties have attended mediation, and 8 additionally that the Court extend the deadline for all parties to file motions to compel, 9 since Plaintiff has not yet been served with discovery. Id. at 4. 10 At the status conference, parties represented that their likely mediation date will be 11 in March of 2020. The Court does not find it appropriate to grant an extension of over four 12 months. Therefore, the parties’ motion is DENIED IN PART. However, the Court does 13 find good cause to extend the motion to compel deadline by 30 days, regarding Defendant’s 14 responses only.1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the motion, and orders that 15 any motion to compel Defendant’s discovery responses shall be filed no later than 16 October 30, 2019. The Court will only consider another requested extension after the 17 18 19 1 The Court declines to grant an extension for a hypothetical dispute as to Plaintiff’s non- 20 existent responses. See, e.g., Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968) (“[T]he oldest and 21 most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the federal courts will not give advisory opinions[.]”); Maldonado v. Morales, 556 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009) 22 (“The role of the courts is neither to issue advisory opinions nor to declare rights in 23 hypothetical cases, but to adjudicate live cases or controversies.”). The parties are advised to follow the Court’s Chambers Rules with regard to any future disputes 24 regarding Plaintiff’s responses. See Chmb.R. at 2–3 (stating that no later than 45 days 25 after the date of service of the written discovery response that is in dispute, and “[a]fter meet and confer attempts have failed, the movant must e-mail chambers at 26 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov seeking a telephonic conference with the Court to 27 discuss the discovery dispute. . . . No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of 28 1 parties have filed a Joint Motion in accordance with Chambers Rules and lodged a Joint 2 Mediation Plan.3 3 Additionally, based on the parties’ agreement before the Court during the status 4 conference, the Court ORDERS as follows: 5 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 6 pleadings shall be filed no later than October 30, 2019. 7 2. Phase one discovery must be completed by February 10, 2020. Phase one 8 includes fact discovery regarding the merits of Plaintiffs’ individual claims and suitability 9 as class representatives. Phase one also includes non-merits fact and expert discovery 10 necessary to support or oppose class certification. “Completed” means that all discovery 11 must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date so that it may be 12 completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice, and 13 14 15 2 All requests for extensions or continuances must be made by a joint motion and filed on 16 CM/ECF no less than seven days before the affected deadline. The Joint Motion must state: 17 A. The original deadline; 18 B. The number of previous requests for continuances; C. A showing of good cause for the request; 19 D. Whether the request is opposed and why; 20 E. Whether the requested continuance will affect other case management dates; and 21 F. A declaration from the counsel seeking the continuance that describes 22 the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met. 23 3 The Joint Mediation Plan must be lodged (not filed) via email at 24 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no less than seven days before the affected deadline. 25 The joint plan must state: A. The firm date of mediation; 26 B. The identity of the mediator; 27 C. A complete list of informal discovery the parties agree to exchange before mediation; and 28 1 ||response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and 2 good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with 3 ||Local Rule 26.1(a). Counsel shall comply with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge 4 || Allison H. Goddard in bringing discovery disputes before the Court. 5 3. All expert disclosures regarding class certification issues as required by Fed. 6 ||R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be served on all parties no later than November 25, 2019. Any 7 ||contradictory or rebuttal disclosures within the meaning of Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) shall be 8 || disclosed no later than December 30, 2019. Unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, the 9 ||required expert disclosures shall include an expert report as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). 10 |/If a written report is not required, the disclosure must provide the information required 11 |/under Rule 26(a)(2)(c). 12 4. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than March 16, 2020. 13 5. In light of the September 25, 2019 status conference, the parties are relieved 14 || of the obligation of filing a status report regarding the mediation by September 30, 2019. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: September 27, 2019 _ □□ pbiormH. □□□ Honorable Allison H. Goddard 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28