Wilson v. Segovia
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved ex parte to extend the discovery and pre-trial deadlines by sixty days due to the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections' (CDRC) request to continue prisoner matters through August 2020. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding it premature because the current discovery cutoff was not yet affected by the CDRC's continuance.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' ex parte application to modify the scheduling order is denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard from Rule 16(b)(4) and the 'just, speedy, and inexpensive' mandate of Rule 1. The order recites that the CDRC requested continuances only through August 2020, while the discovery cutoff was set for October 12, 2020. Because the requested continuance did not yet overlap with the discovery deadline, the court's determination that the motion was 'premature' and lacked exigency is a defensible exercise of discretion. Denying without prejudice allows the defendants to refile if the CDRC's continuance is extended or if the deadline is actually impacted. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) 'good cause') and applies it to the specific facts recited in the order (CDRC continuance through August vs. discovery cutoff in October). The conclusion that the motion is premature because the conflict has not yet materialized is a logical and defensible application of the rule.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILSON, Case No.: 19-cv-2254-LAB-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 14 SEGOVIA, et al., MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 15 Defendants. ORDER 16 [ECF No. 12] 17 18 19 On June 26, 2020, Defendants moved ex parte to modify the scheduling 20 order regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 12). 21 On March 11, 2020, the court filed a scheduling order setting deadlines for 22 discovery and pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 9). On May 15, 2020, the 23 Court granted defendants’ ex parte application to take the Deposition of 24 Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11). 25 Defendants now request to extend the scheduling order deadlines by 26 sixty days, to September 2020. (ECF No. 12 at 3). In support, Defendants 1 || Rehabilitation (““CDRC”) describing their request to continue all “hearings, 9 || depositions, confidential calls, and in-person meetings through the end of 3 || August 2020” due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 12 at 4 ||6). Defendants point to the CDRC’s potential inability to accommodate 5 || depositions in October or September 2020. Cd. at 2). 6 Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a schedule may be modified 7 |\|“only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause’ g ||standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 9 ||amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 10 || Cir. 1992); Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 11 ||2012). Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that the Federal Rules of Civil 12 || Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court 13 the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of 14 ||every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 1. 15 Presently, the CDRC has requested continuances of all prisoner matters 16 ||through August 2020. (ECF No. 12 at 6). The discovery cutoff is set for 17 || October 12, 2020. (ECF No. 9). There is no exigency at this time, 18 ||Defendants’ motion is premature. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 19 || Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order WITHOUT 99 || PREJUDICE. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: June 30, 2020 Mirdutr » : |. [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27
Cites, in this corpus
- Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC No. 11-cv-1379 CAB (WMc) · 2012-09-21