Herrera v. General Atomics
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint stipulation to amend the scheduling order to extend case deadlines by three to seven months without providing any justification or showing of diligence. The court denied the motion for failure to establish good cause but set a specific deadline for the completion of expert discovery.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Joint Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order“Accordingly, the parties' motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Rule 16(b)(4) 'good cause' standard, which focuses on the moving party's diligence. The order recites that the parties provided no reasons for the continuance, did not show diligence, and did not explain the remaining discovery needs. Denying a motion that lacks any factual support or legal argument is consistent with the cited Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Setting of Expert Discovery Deadline“Accordingly, all expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before August 8, 2022.” | agree with court The court identified a gap in the existing Scheduling Order (no expert discovery deadline) and set a specific date. This is within the court's inherent power to control its docket and ensure the case moves forward, particularly after denying a broad continuance. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order (Rule 16(b)(4) good cause/diligence). It accurately applies this standard to the facts presented (or rather, the lack thereof), noting that the parties failed to provide any reasons or show diligence. The citation to Ninth Circuit authority is appropriate. The court also correctly exercises its inherent docket control to set a missing expert discovery deadline. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No.: 21cv1632-AJB(BLM) 10 ERNESTO HERRERA, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER 12 v. REGULATING DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 13 GENERAL ATOMICS, CARLOS ROMAN DIAZ DE LEON, AND DOES 1-50, 14 [ECF NO. 15] Defendants. 15 16 17 On November 9, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Discovery Plan. ECF No. 5. 18 On November 22, 2021, then Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez issued a Scheduling Order 19 Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings. ECF No. 7. 20 On December 28, 2021, the case was transferred from the calendar of Judge Lopez to 21 the calendar of Magistrate Judge Barbara Major. ECF No. 11. 22 On March 24, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Amend The Scheduling Order 23 Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-trial Proceedings. ECF No. 15. The parties seek to continue 24 the remaining case deadlines by anywhere from three to seven months. Id. at 2. Specifically, 25 they request that "the dates proposed in the Parties’ Joint Discovery Plan be adopted by this 26 Court, or alternatively, dates chosen by this Court that more closely align with the dates 27 proposed in the Parties’ Joint Discovery Plan." Id. 1 Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified only 2 “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Rule 16 good 3 cause standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 4 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 5 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for “good cause” based 6 primarily on diligence of moving party). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving 7 party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 8 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court also may consider the “existence or degree of prejudice 9 to the party opposing the modification . . . .” Id. 10 The parties' motion is devoid of any support or argument for their requested 11 continuance. The parties fail to provide any reason at all, let alone good cause for continuing 12 the case deadlines. The parties do not make any attempt to show that they have been diligent 13 thus far. The motion is silent with respect to what discovery has or has not been completed, 14 what additional discovery remains, why the parties need an additional six months to complete 15 that discovery, or why the parties requested almost a year to compete discovery in a standard 16 employee discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination action. 17 Additionally, while the Court requests that parties submit Joint Discovery Plans in 18 accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 26(f) and to seek their input in scheduling deadlines, 19 the Court is not required to select the dates agreed upon by the parties as the Court "is mindful 20 of the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of lawsuits and the courts' inherent power 21 to control their dockets" which does not always align with the parties' proposed dates. Citadel 22 Broadcasting Company v. Peak Broadcasting, LLC, 2008 WL 11463664, at *2 (D. Idaho, Jan. 24, 23 2007) (citing In re Phenylpropanolamine Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 24 2006). 25 Finally, the parties emphasize that the close of fact discovery is less than four weeks from 26 the filing of the instant motion. That facts does not establish good cause. The parties are not 27 1 || entitled to a continuance because they asked for one four weeks before the close of discovery. 2 || Accordingly, the parties' motion is DENIED.! 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: 3/25/2022 lobe Mager 5 Hon. Barbara L. Major 6 United States Maqistrate Judde 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The parties ask the Court to adopt a December 15, 2022 deadline for the close of expert 27 discovery. ECF No. 15 at 2; see also ECF No. 5 at 4. After reviewing the Scheduling Order [see ECF No. 7], it does not appear that the Court has set a deadline for the close of expert discovery. 28 Accordingly, all expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before August 8, 2022. 2