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 case scheduling order by approximately six months due to the non-appearance of certain defendants and delays in discovery. The court granted the motion in part by extending the deadlines but denied it in part by refusing to adopt the specific dates proposed by the parties, instead issuing a new Second Amended Scheduling Order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order granted in part and denied in part“Accordingly, the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART in that the Court modifies the scheduling order dates as outlined below. 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 correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The order recites that some defendants have not appeared and that there were delays in discovery despite good faith efforts. Under Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations), the focus is on the moving party's reasons. The court found good cause existed but exercised its discretion to set its own deadlines rather than adopting the parties' proposal, which is a permissible exercise of judicial management authority under Rule 16. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) and the Ninth Circuit's 'good cause' test from Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations). It applies this standard to the facts presented (non-appearance of defendants, discovery delays) and reaches a defensible result by modifying the schedule while retaining control over the specific dates. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a scheduling order.
Opinion
.
2 3 . 4 .
5 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.) 13 || v. ORDER: 14 || GENOX TRANSPORTATION, INC., et (1) GRANTING IN PART AND al., DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY 16 Defendants.| SCHEDULING ORDER; AND (2) SECOND AMENDED © 18 | SCHEDULING ORDER 19 [Doe. 62] 20 . 21 On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff PMA Companies, Defendant Genox Transportation, 22 ||Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff Applied LNG Technologies, LLC, and Third-Party Defendant 23 ||Cleancor LNG, LLC (collectively, the “Parties”) filed a stipulation and joint motion to 24 modify the scheduling order (“Joint Motion”) by approximately six (6) months. (Doc. 62; 25 ||see also Doc. 51.) This is the parties’ second request to amend scheduling order dates. 26 ||(See Docs. 45, 62.) The parties allege good cause exists to modify the undersigned’s 27 || August 11, 2021 first amended scheduling order (“Scheduling Order”) because Defendant 28 Laird Transportation, LLC and Defendant J ason Laird have not appeared in the action to 1 || date. (Doc. 62 at 3.) Moreover, the Parties allege “this Court should modify the Scheduling 2 || Order because additional time is necessary to complete outstanding discovery” and “there 3 || were delays in the exchange of written discovery, despite the Parties’ good faith efforts.” 4 || (Id. at 4.) 5 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 6 || the judge’s consent. FED. R. CIv. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 7 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is _ 8 || upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). 9 Good cause exists to modify the Scheduling Order, as there are multiple litigants 10 || involved in this complex case and some Defendants have yet to appear. At the same time, 11 || however, the parties are expected to act diligently in completing discovery. Accordingly, 12 ||the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART in that the Court modifies the scheduling order 13 || dates as outlined below. The Joint Motion is DENIED IN PART in that the Court declines 14 || to adopt the parties’ proposed scheduling order deadlines. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 15. || that the Court’s August 11, 2021 Scheduling Order is hereby amended as follows: 16 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by September 22, 2022. 17 ||“Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 18 || Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 19 || time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 20 || into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 22 ||regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a).. The Court 23 ||expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention 24 through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery 25 issue, counsel shall file an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined 26 ||in the undersigned magistrate judge’s chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard 27 || will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no 28 stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court.
1 2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by October 21, 2 2022. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), the parties must identify any person who 3 ||may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. 4 ||Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal 5 experts shall be by November 7, 2022. The written designations shall include the name, 6 address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony 7 ||the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert 8 || charges for deposition and trial testimony. . 9 3. By December 6, 2022, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions 10 |/in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 11 |/requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 12 ||testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 13 || expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 14 || make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 15 || evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 16 || the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 17 4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 18 || evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by December 20, 2022. 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by January 20, 2023. 20 || The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing 21 || fact discovery. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 22 ||may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 23 introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 24 6. All other pretrial motions, including those addressing Daubert issues related 25 ||to dispositive motions must be filed by February 21, 2023. Pursuant to Honorable 26 || Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, all motions for summary judgment 27 shall be accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts. Any opposition 28 ||to a summary judgment motion shall include a response to the separate statement of 1 || undisputed material facts. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date 2 || from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. Motion papers MUST be filed 3 served the same day of obtaining a motion hearing date from chambers. A briefing 4 || schedule will be issued once a motion has been filed. The period of time between the date 5 || you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary. Please plan accordingly. Failure 6 ||to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 7 7. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on May 3, 2023 at 8 ||9:30_A.M. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, 2003 9 || West Adams Avenue, El Centro, California 92243. Counsel or any party representing 10 || himself or herself shall lodge confidential settlement briefs directly to chambers by April 11 ||21, 2023. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chamber Rules of 12 || the assigned magistrate judge. 13 8. Pursuant to Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, 14 parties are excused from the requirement of Local Rule 16.1(f)(2)(a); no Memoranda 15 || of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed. . 16 9. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 17 || Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by May 18, 2023. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements 18 || could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 19 10. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by 20 || May 25,2023. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations 21 agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall exchange 22 || copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits 23 ||shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c): Counsel shall note any 24 objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 ||26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference 26 || order. 27 11. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 28 || arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By June 2, 2023, 1 || plaintiff's counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order for 2 ||review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with □□□□□□□□□□□ 3 attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both parties 4 shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 5 12. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 6 || other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and 7 || lodged with the assigned district judge by June 9, 2023, and shall be in the form prescribed 8 and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 9 13. . The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 10 ||Gonzalo P. Curiel on June 16, 2023 at 1:30 P.M. The Court will set a trial date during 11 || the pretrial conference. The Court will also schedule a motion in limine hearing date during 12 || the pretrial conference. . □ 13 14. | The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 14 || and magistrate judge. □ 15 15. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 16 || within 30 days of verdict in the case. 17 16.. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 18 || shown. 19 17. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for 20 || the same motion day shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length, per party, without 21 leave of the judge who will hear the motion. No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) 22 || pages without leave of a district court judge. Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) 23 || pages in length shall have a table of contents and a table of authorities cited. 24 18. Plaintiff's counsel shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this 25 || case hereafter. | 26 27 . 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||Dated: February 17,2022 _ 3 eo Hae Znuelp actinspak ) 4 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 . . 7 3 9 . 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |) 21 22 23 24 25 26 | 27 28