United States v. K.O.O. Construction
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion requesting a 30-day continuance of expert discovery and subsequent pretrial deadlines due to delays in finalizing witness transcripts. The court granted the motion in part, allowing a 14-day extension for most deadlines, and denied the remainder, warning that no further continuances would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Request Continuance of Expert Discovery and Other Dates and Deadlines granted in part and denied in part“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the joint motion as follows:” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order. The court found good cause existed but determined the requested 30-day extension was excessive, granting a 14-day extension instead. This is a discretionary decision within the court's authority to manage the docket and ensure the 'just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of the action under Rule 1. The reduction of the requested time is a reasonable exercise of discretion given the parties' prior extension and the need to maintain the overall timeline. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order (good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)) and cites the relevant Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations) regarding the diligence requirement. The court explicitly finds 'good cause' exists, thereby satisfying the threshold requirement, and then exercises its discretion to limit the extension to 14 days rather than the requested 30. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural scheduling order, balancing the parties' need for time against the court's duty to ensure a speedy determination. There are no significant gaps in the legal analysis for this type of routine motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for Case No.: 19cv1535-JAH-LL the use and benefit of ANDREW C. 12 CHEN, an individual, doing business as ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 TECTONICS, DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO REQUEST 14 Plaintiff, CONTINUANCE OF EXPERT 15 v. DISCOVERY AND OTHER DATES AND DEADLINES 16 K.O.O. CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation, 17 Defendant. [ECF No. 33] 18 19 K.O.O. CONSTRUCTION, INC., a 20 California corporation, 21 Counter Claimant, 22 v. 23 ANDREW C. CHEN, an individual, doing 24 business as TECTONICS, 25 Counter Defendant. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Currently before the Court is the parties’ joint motion requesting that the Court 2 continue the deadline for expert discovery and subsequent deadlines including and up to 3 the deadline for filing pretrial motions. ECF No. 33. The parties request an approximate 4 30-day continuance of these deadlines on the basis that “the parties still await confirmation 5 from a number of witnesses that they have no changes to their respective transcripts.” 6 Motion at 4. The parties further state: 7 Thirty days of additional time to complete depositions was effectively utilized and the [previous] extension is appreciated by the parties. However, it has 8 impacted the parties’ respective experts’ ability to complete their investigation 9 and reports pursuant and this Court’s Scheduling Order, as well as counsels’ coordination with their respective experts based on ongoing review of 10 deposition transcripts, evaluating how each witnesses’ testimony based on 11 ongoing review of deposition transcripts, evaluating how each witnesses’ testimony relates to previously produced documents, and other written 12 discovery, and how that impacts defense strategy, including without limitation 13 with respect to the experts’ approach to the case. 14 Id. The parties further note that they “are not seeking continuance of any dates that would 15 impact the overall timeline of this case” (e.g., nothing beyond the pretrial motion deadline). 16 Id. 17 “The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of 18 Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In employing the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure, courts and parties are required “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 20 determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Pursuant to Rule 16, the 21 Court is required to issue a scheduling order that “must limit the time to join other parties, 22 amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.”1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 16(b)(3)(A). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 24 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Rule 16(b)'s 'good cause' standard primarily considers 25 the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 26 27 28 1 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). If the moving party fails to demonstrate diligence, "the 2 ||inquiry should end." Id. 3 The Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines, but not for the amount of time 4 ||requested. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the joint 5 || motion as follows: 6 e The deadline to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) re: expert disclosure is 7 continued from August 24, 2020 to September 7, 2020. 8 e The deadline for Supplemental Disclosures per Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) is 9 continued from September 4, 2020 to September 18, 2020. 10 e The deadline for completion of expert discovery is continued from October 5, 1] 2020 to October 19, 2020. 12 e The deadline for the Pre-Trial Motion Cutoff is continued from November 5, 13 2020 until November 16, 2020. 14 || All other dates and deadlines shall remain as set and no further continuances shall be 15 granted absent extraordinary circumstances. ECF Nos. 20, 31. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 _ Dated: August 18, 2020 _ Lo 19 Honorable Linda Lopez 0 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28