Alcaraz v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint stipulation from the parties to modify the existing scheduling order to allow for a private mediation and save on expert costs. The court granted the motion, finding good cause existed, and issued a First Amended Scheduling Order with new deadlines for expert disclosures, discovery, and the mandatory settlement conference.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Stipulation Modifying Civil Trial Preparation Order granted“As such, good cause exists to grant a continuance of time. Accordingly, the Joint Motion (Doc. 17) is GRANTED.” | 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 parties provided a specific reason (scheduling a private mediation to save on expert expenditures) and demonstrated diligence in prior discovery. This constitutes a valid showing of good cause. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate rule and binding circuit precedent for the standard of review. The court explicitly finds that the parties' reasons (mediation and cost savings) constitute good cause, which is a defensible application of the law given the parties' diligence in prior discovery.
Opinion
3 : . 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _ 9 || SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || CLAUDIA ALCARAZ, Case No.: 20-cv-01377-DMS-RBM. 12 | Plaintiff) | wep: 13 || v. 14 |] LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, etal. MODIFY __ Defendants.) SCHEDULING ORDER; 16 . AND 17 18 (2) FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 19 20 . . [Doc. 17 . 21 22 Before the Court is Plaintiff Claudia Alcaraz (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Lowe’s 23 ||Home Centers, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Joint Stipulation Modifying Civil Trial Preparation 24 || Order (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. 17.) The Joint Motion requests that the Court continue the 25 || expert disclosure deadline by 60 days, the related expert discovery deadlines by 30-60 days, 26 ||and the mandatory settlement conference by 90 days. (Id. at 1-3.) This is the parties’ first 27 |Irequest for a continuance of the Court’s September 11, 2020 Scheduling Order 28 (“Scheduling Order”). (Doc. 16.) The parties allege good cause exists for a continuance, 1 || because they are scheduling a private mediation for April/May 2021 and wish to save on 2 ||expert expenditures. (Doc. 17 at 1-2.) 3 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 4 || the judge’s consent. FED. R. CIv. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 5 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is 6 upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). The parties have diligently 7 || conducted discovery including service of written discovery requests and subpoenas, as well 8 conducted the deposition of Plaintiff along with an independent medical exam. (Doc. 9 at 2.) A continuance of the dates requested allows the parties additional resources to 10 explore meaningful settlement. As such, good cause exists to grant a continuance of time. 11 Accordingly, the Joint Motion (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. The September 11, 2020 12 ||Scheduling Order (Doc. 16) is hereby AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 13 1. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by May 25, 14 ||2021. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present. □□□□□□□□ 15 || pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is 16 ||not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by June 17 2021. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone number 18 || of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. 19 || The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial 20 || testimony. 21 2. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on September 29, 22 ||2021 at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, 23 || United States Courthouse, 2003 W. Adams Ave., El Centro, California 92243. Counsel 24 ||or any party representing himself or herself shall submit confidential settlement briefs 25 || directly to chambers by September 20, 2021. All parties are ordered to read and to fully 26 ||comply with the Chamber Rules of the assigned magistrate judge. . 27 3. By July 8, 2021, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 28 ||Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 1 ||requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 2 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 3 || expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 4 ||make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 5 evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 6 || the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by FED. R. CIv. P. 37(c). 7 Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 8 || evidence under FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)\(D) by July 23, 2021, 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 16, 2021. The 10 || parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 11 |/discovery. 12 6. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the Court 13 ||may result in the sanctions provided for in FED. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 14 introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. IT ISSO ORDERED. 16 || DATE: March 9, 2021 Ig HON. RUTH BERMUDEY. MOMTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 . □ .
28 .