Ingegno v. Pruco Life Insurance Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to continue all case deadlines by 60 days due to holiday closures, geographic distance, COVID-19 impacts, and objections to remote depositions. The court granted a 30-day extension to the fact discovery deadline but denied the remaining requests, ordering the parties to establish protocols for remote depositions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant in part the Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines by extending the fact discovery deadline from March 5, 2021, to April 5, 2021.“Based on the information provided in the parties’ Joint Motion, the Court finds there is good cause for a 30-day extension of the fact discovery deadline from March 5, to April 5, 2021.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard typically associated with Rule 16(b) or local rules for modifying scheduling orders. The reasons provided (holiday closures, travel distance, and specific scheduling conflicts) are generally accepted as good cause for a modest extension of discovery deadlines. The decision to limit the extension to 30 days rather than the requested 60 days is within the court's discretion to manage the docket. |
Deny in part the Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines regarding the 60-day extension for all other dates and deadlines.“However, the parties have not established good cause for a 60-day extension as to all other dates and deadlines in the current Scheduling Order.” | agree with court The court found the proffered reasons insufficient to justify a blanket 60-day delay for all case milestones. This is a standard exercise of case management authority where the court balances the parties' convenience against the need for judicial efficiency. |
Order the parties to meet and confer to develop protocols for remote depositions and submit a proposed order by January 25, 2021.“Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and confer to develop appropriate protocols for depositions in this case to be conducted remotely and to submit a proposed order to the Court no later than January 25, 2020.” | agree with court The court rejected the plaintiffs' objection to remote depositions, citing the necessity of such measures during the pandemic. It directed the parties to create specific protocols, which is a reasonable procedural step to ensure fairness and technical reliability in remote proceedings. Note: The order contains a typo stating the deadline as 'January 25, 2020' instead of 2021, but the intent is clear from the context of the filing date (Jan 13, 2021). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard for modifying scheduling orders (good cause) and applies it to the specific facts presented. The court appropriately balances the request for a continuance against the need for case progression, particularly in the context of the pandemic. The reliance on recent district court decisions from the Ninth Circuit supports the mandate for remote depositions. The only minor defect is the typographical error in the year of the deadline (2020 vs 2021), which does not affect the legal reasoning or the enforceability of the order given the context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
possible bias possible biasOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES PETER INGEGNO and JERRY Case No.: 20cv385-H(KSC) HAMMOND, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff, 13 DENYING IN PART JOINT v. MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 DEADLINES [Doc. No. 33.] THE PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE 15 COMPANY, 16 Defendants. 17 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines. [Doc. No. 20 33.] In this Joint Motion, the parties seek a continuance of all dates and deadlines in the 21 Scheduling Order filed on November 3, 2020 [Doc. No. 31] for 60 days. There are 22 several reasons for the request. First, the offices of plaintiffs’ counsel were closed for the 23 holidays. Second, plaintiffs reside in Mexico and Arizona. Third, plaintiffs’ ability to 24 complete an investigation in Mexico to check the veracity of defendant’s investigative 25 report has been impacted by COVID-19. Fourth, plaintiffs object to conducting 26 depositions remotely via Zoom. Fifth, plaintiffs’ counsel will be out of the office the 27 week of January 16, 2021 to move his mother to assisted living. [Doc. No. 33, at pp. 3-4.] 28 / / / 1 Based on the information provided in the parties’ Joint Motion, the Court finds 2 || there is good cause for a 30-day extension of the fact discovery deadline from March 5, 3 to April 5, 2021. However, the parties have not established good cause for a 60-day 4 || extension as to all other dates and deadlines in the current Scheduling Order. 5 Because of the COVID-19 public health emergency, depositions via Zoom and 6 || other remote means have become a necessary and regular occurrence in legal 7 || proceedings. See e.g., Swenson vy. GEICO Cas. Co., 336 F.R.D. 206 D. Nev. 2020) 8 || (acknowledging that “courts within the Ninth Circuit routinely highlight remote 9 || depositions as an effective and appropriate means to keep cases moving forward 10 |} notwithstanding pandemic-related restrictions”); Grano v. Sodexo Management, Inc., 335 11 || F.R.D. 411 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (stating that “attorneys all over the country are having to 12 || adjust to conducting depositions via videoconference”). Accordingly, the parties are 13 || ordered to meet and confer to develop appropriate protocols for depositions in this case to 14 || be conducted remotely and to submit a proposed order to the Court no later than 15 || January 25, 2020. See, e.g., Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC 16 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2020) (Stipulated Protective Order re Remote Deposition Protocols). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: January 13, 2021 YX) 19 Mfficae _———_ 20 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28