PMA Companies v. Genox Transportation, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to modify the existing scheduling order due to the failure of certain defendants to appear in the action. The court granted the motion in part by extending the deadlines but denied it in part by refusing to adopt the parties' proposed schedule, instead issuing a new set of specific dates for discovery and pretrial proceedings.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order granted in part“The joint motion is GRANTED IN PART in that the Court finds good cause to extend the scheduling order dates.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The parties alleged that several defendants had not appeared in the action, which is a recognized basis for finding good cause to modify a scheduling order to allow for service and participation. The decision to extend the dates is consistent with the law and the facts recited. |
Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order denied in part“The joint motion is DENIED IN PART in that the Court declines to adopt the parties’ proposed scheduling order deadlines.” | agree with court The court has discretion to modify a scheduling order and is not bound to adopt the specific deadlines proposed by the parties, even if good cause is shown for modification. The court exercised its discretion to set its own deadlines, which is a standard judicial function in case management. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order (good cause) and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent. It applies this standard to the facts presented (non-appearance of defendants) to find good cause exists. The court then exercises its discretion to set specific deadlines rather than adopting the parties' proposal, which is a permissible exercise of case management authority. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
4 3 . 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || PMA COMPANIES, Case No.: 3:20-cv-2540-GPC-RBM 12 Plaintiff, . ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 ||“ DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ 14 || GENOX TRANSPORTATION, INC., et JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY “45 al., SCHEDULING ORDER; AND 16 Defendants.| FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING 7 __ ORDER 18 [Doc. 45] 19 20 On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff PMA Companies, Defendant Genox Transportation, Inc., 21 Third Party Plaintiff Applied LNG Technologies, LLC, and Third Party Defendant 22 || Cleancor LNG, LLC (collectively “Parties”) filed a joint motion to modify the Court’s 23 ||March 22, 2021 Scheduling Order. (Doc. 45; see also Doc. 23.) The parties allege good 24 cause exists to modify the Scheduling Order because Defendant Laird Transportation, 25 || LLC, Defendant Jason Laird, and Third Party Defendant Phillips’ Cattle Co., Inc. have not 26 || appeared in the action to date. (Doc. 45 at 3-4.) 27 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 28 || the judge’s consent. FED. R. CIv. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 1 ||Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is 2 upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). 3 joint motion is GRANTED IN PART in that the Court finds good cause to 4 extend the scheduling order dates. The joint motion is DENIED IN PART in that the _ 5 || Court declines to adopt the parties’ proposed scheduling order deadlines. IT IS HEREBY 6 || ORDERED that the Court’s March 22, 2021 Scheduling Order is hereby amended as 7 || follows: 8 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by March 22, 2022. 9 ||“Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 || Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period 11 || of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, 12 || taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal 13 ||Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer 14 || with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The 15 || Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court 16 || intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any 17 || discovery issue, counsel shall file an appropriate motion within the time limit and 18 || procedures outlined in the undersigned magistrate judge’s chambers rules. A failure to 19 || comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 20 || order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 21 recognized by the court. 22 2, The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by April 21, 23 2022. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), the parties must identify any person who □ 24 || may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. 25. Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date forexchange □□ 26 ||rebuttal experts shall be by May 5, 2022. The written designations shall include the 27 ||name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the 28 || testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates 1 || the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. . 2 || 3. By June 6, 2022, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 3 || Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 4 ||requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 5 || testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 6 || expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 7 ||make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 8 || evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In □ 9 || addition, the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 10 | 4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 11 || evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a\(2\(D) and 26(e) by June 20, 2022. 12 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 20, 2022. The 13 || parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact □ 14 discovery. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court -15 || may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 16 || the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 17 6. All other pretrial motions, including those addressing Daubert issues related 18 || to dispositive motions must be filed by August 19, 2022. Pursuant to Honorable Gonzalo 19 ||P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, all motions for summary judgment shall be 20 || accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts. Any opposition to a 21 ||summary judgment motion shall include a response to the separate statement of 22 undisputed material facts. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing 23 || date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. Motion papers MUST be 24 || filed and served the same day of obtaining a motion hearing date from chambers. A 25 || briefing schedule will be issued once a motion has been filed. The period oftime □ 26 || between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary. Please plan 27 || accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion 28 ||not being heard. . .
1 7. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on November 2, 2 2022 at 9:30 A.M. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, 3 ||2003 West Adams Avenue, El Centro, California 92243. Counsel or any party 4 representing himself or herself shall lodge confidential settlement briefs directly to 5 ||chambers by October 21, 2022. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with 6 ||the Chamber Rules of the assigned magistrate judge. 7 8. Pursuant to Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, 8 parties are excused from the requirement of Local Rule 16.1(f)(2)(a); no Memoranda 9 || of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed. 10 9. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 11 || Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by November 18, 2022. Failure to comply with these disclosure 12 || requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13 ||37. . □ 14 10. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(£)(4) by 15 || November 25, 2022. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 16 stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 17 || exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. 18 || The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall 19 ||note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. 20 |) P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial 21 conference order. . 22 11. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 23 drranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By December 2, 24 2022, plaintiffs counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order 25 || for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with plaintiff's 26 || attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both 27 || parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 28 12. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 1 other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and □ 2 || lodged with the assigned district judge by December 9, 2022, and shall be in the form 3 || prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(£)(6). 4 13. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 5 || Gonzalo P. Curiel on December 16, 2022 at 1:30 P.M. The Court will set a trial date 6 || during the pretrial conference. The Court will also schedule a motion in limine hearing 7 || date during the pretrial conference. 8 14. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 9 magistrate judge. 10 15. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 11 || within 30 days of verdict in the case. 12 16. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good 13 ||cause shown. | 14 17. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for 15 same motion day shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length, per party, without 16 || leave of the judge who will hear the motion. No reply memorandum shall exceed ten 17 ||(10) pages without leave of a district court judge. Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten 18 ||(10) pages in length shall have a table of contents and a table of authorities cited. 19 18. Plaintiff's counsel shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter 20 || this case hereafter. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: August 11, 2021 23° Fl Eeanuds on Terept_— 24 _ HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28