Stevenson v. Beard
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Stevie Stevenson v. Jeffrey Beard (2024-09-12) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed an ex parte application to modify the briefing schedule for their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, citing the sudden departure of their assigned Deputy Attorney General. The court granted the application, extending the deadline for Defendants' opposition to December 2, 2020, and Plaintiff's reply to December 23, 2020.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendants' ex parte application to modify the briefing schedule“Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. The October 14, 2020 Briefing Schedule (Doc. 126) is hereby AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Defendants must file any opposition to Plaintiffs Motion on or before December 2, 2020. Plaintiff may file any reply brief on or before December 23, 2020.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for modifying a scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires a showing of good cause. The court found that the sudden departure of the assigned Deputy Attorney General one week before the deadline was unforeseeable and constituted good cause. This is a defensible application of the law to the facts presented in the application. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 16(b)(4)) and the relevant case law (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations) for modifying a scheduling order. The court acknowledges that the application was not timely filed under local chambers rules but proceeds to analyze the substantive requirement of 'good cause.' The finding that the sudden departure of the assigned attorney constitutes good cause is a reasonable exercise of discretion based on the facts alleged in the application. The order also appropriately admonishes counsel to comply with local rules in the future.
Opinion
1 .
4 5 .
7 . 8 "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || STEVIE J. STEVENSON, Case No.: 16-cv-3079-TWR-RBM _—-Plaintitt ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 || V. . ‘EX PARTE. APPLICATION TO 14 || serrREY BEARD, Ph.D. etal, MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 15 Defendants.| INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY 16 oo RESTRAINING ORDER q7 [Does. 126, 127] 18 19 On October 29, 2020, Defendants Jeffrey Beard, Ph.D., et al. (collectively 20 ||“Defendants”) filed an ex parte application to modify the briefing schedule as to Plaintiff 21 ||Stevie J. Stevenson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary injunction or temporary 92 ||restraining order (“Ex Parte Application”). (Doc. 127.) Pursuant to the Court’s October 93 || 14, 2020 briefing schedule (“Briefing Schedule”), Defendants had until October 30, 2020 24 ||to file any opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction or temporary 25 ||restraining order. (Doc. 126.) This is Defendants’ first request for an extension of time tc 26 an opposition. (Doc. 127.) Defendants requests a thirty-day continuance of the 27 || Briefing Schedule. (/d. at 1.) □ 1 The undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures and Chambers’ Rules require that any 2 request to continue a scheduling order deadline must be made in writing no less than seven 3 ||(7) calendar days before the affected date. Defendants’ Ex Parte Application was not 4 || timely filed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants allege good cause exists to grant 5 continuance. (Doc. 127 at 1-2.) Defendants allege good cause exists, because the 6 || Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case abruptly left the office on October 23, 2020. 7 ||(d. at 1.) Defendants request a continuance to give the office sufficient time to assign a 8 ||new attorney to the case, and for that attorney to familiarize himself/herself with the case 9 file a response to Plaintiffs motion. (/d.) Defendants also contend that a continuance 10 | would not prejudice Plaintiff, and Defendants would not object to similar requests by 11 || Plaintiff as needed. (/d. at 2.) 12 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 13 ||the judge’s consent. FED. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 14 || Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is 15 upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). The sudden departure of an 16 || attorney one week before a response deadline is both unforeseeable and sufficient to find 17 || good cause here. Under the circumstances, a continuance allows Defendants additional 18 ||time to assign a new attorney, become familiar with the case, and file a response. As such, 19 || good cause exists to grant a continuance of time. 20 Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. The October 14, 2020 21 || Briefing Schedule (Doc. 126) is hereby AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 22 Defendants must file any opposition to Plaintiffs Motion on or before December 2, 23 ||2020. Plaintiff may file any reply brief on or before December 23, 2020. Upon completion 24 || of the briefing, the Court will take the matter under submission without an oral argument 25 || pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and no personal appearances will be required. 26 Counsel is ADMONISHED to comply with the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures and 27 ||Chambers’ Rules with respect to any future motion and/or ex parte application. 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || DATE: November 3, 2020 Cc 4 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MGNTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28