Moncreiff v. San Diego Unified School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to extend discovery and pre-trial deadlines due to the inability to conduct depositions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court denied the motion without prejudice and ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the feasibility of remote depositions, requiring a joint status report by May 8, 2020.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Case Deadlines“For these reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Parties’ request.” | agree with court The court applied the Rule 16(b)(4) 'good cause' standard, which focuses on the moving party's reasonable diligence. The parties failed to explain why remote depositions were not feasible, a requirement supported by Rule 30(b)(4) and contemporaneous case law. Denying the motion without prejudice while ordering a meet and confer is a procedurally sound response to a motion that lacks specific justification for why standard remote alternatives were not considered. |
Ordering Parties to Meet and Confer on Remote Deposition Protocol“Instead, the Court finds it appropriate to ORDER the Parties to meet and confer to determine whether a protocol for remotely completing the depositions identified in the Court’s March 25, 2020 Order is feasible.” | agree with court This directive is consistent with the court's finding that the parties had not established good cause for a blanket extension. By requiring the parties to explore remote options, the court addresses the specific deficiency in the motion (failure to explain why remote depositions were impossible) while maintaining the existing schedule. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for modifying a Rule 16 scheduling order and applies it to the specific facts presented. The court notes that the parties failed to explain why remote depositions were not an option, which is a critical element of 'good cause' and 'reasonable diligence' in this context. The reliance on recent, contemporaneous district court decisions from various jurisdictions supports the proposition that remote depositions are a viable alternative that must be considered before granting a blanket extension. The remedy of denying without prejudice and ordering a meet and confer is appropriate and proportionate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIANNA MONCREIFF, Case No.: 19cv1030-GPC-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE AND DIRECTING 14 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER DISTRICT, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 23] 16 17 18 Currently before the Court is the Parties’ “Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and 19 Case Deadlines.” ECF No. 23. The Parties request an extension of the fact discovery 20 deadline to July 31, 2020 for the limited purpose of allowing the Parties to complete the 21 depositions identified in the Court’s March 25, 2020 Order [ECF No. 22]. Id. at 2. The 22 Parties further request a corresponding extension of all subsequent pre-trial deadlines. Id. 23 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 24 Parties’ request. 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified 27 only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also 28 ECF No. 15 at 7 (stating that the Court will not modify the dates and times set forth in the 1 Scheduling Order “except for good cause shown.”). The Rule 16 good cause standard 2 focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 3 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the 4 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 5 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 ANALYSIS 7 The Court finds the Parties have not established good cause for an extension of the 8 case deadlines as requested. The Parties state that since the Court’s March 25, 2020 9 Order, they have been unable to proceed with fact discovery depositions given the 10 conditions created by the current COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 23 at 4. Although the 11 Court recognizes the serious public health emergency resulting from the COVID-19 12 pandemic, “[a]ttorneys and litigants all over the country are adapting to a new way of 13 practicing law, including conducting depositions and deposition preparation remotely.” 14 Grano v. Sodexo Mgmt., No. 18cv1818-GPC(BLM), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72862, at 15 *10-11 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020). 16 In this case, the Parties have failed to explain why they cannot conduct the 17 remaining depositions by telephone, video, or some other remote means. See Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 30(b)(4) (“The parties may stipulate—or the court may on motion order—that 19 a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means.”); see Velicer v. Falconhead 20 Capital LLC, No. C19-1505 JLR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64494, at *5-6 (W.D. Wash. 21 Apr. 13, 2020) (denying motion to extend case deadlines where parties failed to discuss 22 why they could not take depositions remotely). 23 It is further not clear to the Court whether the Parties have even discussed the 24 possibility of completing the remaining depositions in this way. For these reasons, the 25 Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Parties’ request. Instead, the Court finds 26 it appropriate to ORDER the Parties to meet and confer to determine whether a protocol 27 for remotely completing the depositions identified in the Court’s March 25, 2020 Order is 28 feasible. See SAPS, LLCS v. Ezcare Clinic, Inc., No. 19-11229, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69575, at *6 (E.D. La. Apr. 21, 2020) (finding it is not feasible to delay depositions “until 2 || some unknown time in the future” during the present pandemic); De Lench v. Archie, 3 |INo. 18-12549-LTS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58049, at *6 (D. Mass. Apr. 2, 2020) 4 (reminding parties trial date is firm and encouraging “the parties to avail themselves of 5 || video technology for meetings, depositions, and other communication and interactions 6 arising 1n the discovery process” in light of the current pandemic). 7 The Parties shall file a Joint Status Report with the Court by May 8, 2020 8 regarding the efforts of their meet and confer. The Joint Status Report should not exceed ? || seven pages in length. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: April 30, 2020 XO 13 DEF 14 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28