G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Cuevas
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a joint motion to continue fact and expert discovery deadlines by one month due to scheduling conflicts and counsel's unavailability. The court granted the motion in part, extending the deadline only for three specific depositions to October 1, 2021, while maintaining the original September 2, 2021 deadline for all other discovery.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Fact Discovery and Expert Discovery Deadlines granted in part“The parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 1. The three depositions specifically referenced in the motion (Defendant’s deposition of one of G&G’s sales personnel, and Plaintiff’s depositions of two of Defendants’ staff) must be completed by October 1, 2021.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Rule 16(b)(4). It found that the parties failed to demonstrate diligence over the six months since the scheduling order was entered, which generally weighs against a continuance. However, the court balanced this against the preference for deciding cases on the merits and the specific, identified nature of the remaining depositions. Granting a limited extension for specific depositions while denying a blanket extension is a reasonable exercise of discretion under the good cause standard, as it addresses the specific prejudice (inability to complete specific depositions) without unduly delaying the entire case. |
Denial of extension for all other fact and expert discovery deadlines“2. All other fact discovery and expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by September 2, 2021.” | agree with court The court explicitly stated it did not find good cause to 'fully grant the request' because the parties had not persuaded the court they were diligently pursuing discovery for the last six months. Denying the broader extension is consistent with the finding of lack of diligence and the need to maintain the schedule for the remainder of the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority defining that standard. The court applies the standard to the facts, noting the lack of diligence but balancing it against the preference for merits-based resolution. The decision to grant a limited extension rather than a full one is a logical application of the good cause analysis, addressing the specific prejudice without abandoning the schedule. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 G & G CLOSED CIRCUIT EVENTS, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02113-BAS-AHG LLC, 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 FACT DISCOVERY AND EXPERT v. 15 DISCOVERY DEADLINES MOISES CUEVAS, individually and 16 doing business as Mariscos El Camaron, [ECF No. 13] 17 and MARISCOS EL CAMARON, INC., 18 Defendants.
24 25 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Fact and Expert Discovery 26 Deadlines. ECF No. 13 (referring to Scheduling Order in ECF No. 12). The parties jointly 27 request that the Court extend the fact discovery and expert discovery deadlines by 28 approximately one month. Id. 1 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate 2 good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause 3 and with the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 12 at ¶ 21 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he 4 dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); 5 Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause 6 for the request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within 7 a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 8 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 9 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 10 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 11 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 12 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A “party demonstrates good cause by 13 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 14 Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 15 2018). 16 Fact discovery and expert discovery must be completed by the parties by 17 September 2, 2021. ECF No. 12 at ¶ 5. Here, the parties have represented to the Court that 18 they plan to conduct certain depositions but have not been able to do so yet because of 19 scheduling conflicts. ECF No. 13 at 2. Specifically, Defendants “wish to depose one of 20 G&G’s sales personnel on Monday, August 30, 2021, however, Plaintiff’s counsel is 21 unavailable on that particular date” due to conflicting court appearances. Id. Plaintiff 22 “wishes to depose two of Defendants’ staff. It would appear one or more of those 23 individuals need to be skip traced and subpoenaed.” Id. The parties also note that Plaintiff’s 24 counsel and its authorized representative are unable to reschedule the aforementioned 25 depositions before the deadline because they will be preparing for a World Championship 26 fight. Id. at 3. Thus, the parties have requested that the fact discovery and expert discovery 27 deadlines be continued to October 1, 2021. Id. 28 1 The Court has considered the motion,! and does not find good cause to fully grant 2 || the request. The Scheduling Order was filed on February 18, 2021, and the parties have not 3 ||persuaded the Court that they have been diligently pursuing discovery—i.e., these 4 depositions—for the last six months. However, in light of the case’s posture and the 5 || preference of courts to decide cases on the merits, the Court finds good cause to grant the 6 || extension only as to the depositions specifically referenced in the motion, but will leave 7 || all other case management deadlines as is. Thus, September 2, 2021, remains the cutoff for 8 all other discovery. 9 The parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 10 1. The three depositions specifically referenced in the motion (Defendant’s 11 ||deposition of one of G&G’s sales personnel, and Plaintiff’s depositions of two of 12 || Defendants’ staff) must be completed by October 1, 2021. 13 2. All other fact discovery and expert discovery shall be completed by all parties 14 || by September 2, 2021. 15 3. All other dates, deadlines, procedures, and requirements set forth in the 16 || Scheduling Order (ECF No. 12) remain in place, except as explicitly modified by this 17 || Order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. ) HY. YJ | 1 | 19 || Dated: August 18, 2021 Honorable Allison H. Goddard 0 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 25 ||! As an initial matter, the parties’ motion is deficient. The parties failed to provide a 26 declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that the joint motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking 27 continuance that describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and 28 the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”). The Court will take the parties at their word without the required declaration, but will not do so again.