Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.), Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to extend the deadline for initial disclosures to 45 days after the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, citing diligence issues and a desire to focus on settlement. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the parties failed to meet the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b) because the motion lacked specific factual support and legal authority.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Joint Stipulation and Motion to Extend Early Disclosure Deadline“For this reason, Court DENIES without prejudice the Parties’ Joint Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) for modifying a scheduling order. The order recites that the parties' motion was 'too scant' and contained only 'bald statements' of diligence and cost without specific facts or legal authority. Under the cited precedent, a party must show specific efforts and unforeseeable circumstances; a conclusory joint stipulation is insufficient to meet this burden. The denial without prejudice is appropriate as it allows the parties to refile with a proper showing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b) good cause), cites relevant district court precedent, and applies that standard to the specific deficiencies in the parties' motion (lack of factual specificity and legal authority). The reasoning directly addresses why the motion fails.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY Case No.: 21-CV-1195-GPC-WVG COMPANY OF AMERICA, 12 ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION Plaintiff, 13 AND MOTION TO EXTEND EARLY v. DISCLOSURE DEADLINE IN 14 COURT’S ORDER FOR VIDEO ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE 15 EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION COMPANY (U.S.), INC., CONFERENCE AND CASE 16 Defendant. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 17 18 On August 17, 2021, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Extend Early 19 Disclosure Deadline in Court’s Order for Video Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and 20 Case Management Conference (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. No. 8.) The Parties move the Court 21 to continue the August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange initial disclosures to 45 days after 22 the September 22, 2021 Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) and Case 23 Management Conference (“CMC”). (Id., 2: 5-11.) Two reasons underlie the Joint Motion: 24 (1) despite their “diligent” efforts, the Parties “cannot have [documents for initial 25 disclosures] ready in time to exchange them on August 27, 2021;” and (2) “the Parties 26 would like to focus their attention on the possibility of settlement prior to engaging in 27 potential costly early disclosures.” (Id., 2: 7-14.) Neither of these reasons meet the good 28 1 ||cause standard under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For this reason, 2 Court DENIES without prejudice the Parties’ Joint Motion. 3 “Good cause may be found where the moving party shows it assisted the court with A creating a workable scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the scheduling order's 5 || deadlines due to matters not reasonably foreseeable at the time the scheduling order issued, 6 ||and that it was diligent in seeking a modification once it became apparent it could not 7 ||comply with the scheduling order.” Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. 8 2021 WL 2577144, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2021) (citing Sharp v. Covenant Care, 9 || LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) [internal citations omitted]). 10 The Parties’ Joint Motion is too scant to permit a finding of good cause. As a 11 ||threshold matter, it is unclear what particular steps the Parties have taken to meet the 12 || August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange initial disclosures. A bald statement of diligence is 13 ||no substitute for a fact-specific showing of diligence. Further, the Court cannot properly 14 || assess why an exception to Rule 26(f) is appropriate, such that the deadline to exchange 15 ||initial disclosures should be continued to a time following the ENE and CMC. Citing to 16 || cost without explanation and failing to offer any supporting legal authority obstructs the 17 || Court’s evaluation of the Parties’ request. Accordingly, the Court has no basis upon which 18 |/to find good cause and declines to continue the August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange 19 initial disclosures for such reason. The Parties’ Joint Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 20 || Dated: August 20, 2021 | Se 21 7 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC No. 11-cv-1379 CAB (WMc) · 2012-09-21