Montero v. Hyatt Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to continue the fact discovery deadline by 90 days. The Court granted the motion in part, extending the deadline for specific depositions to July 31, 2022, but denied the request to extend the general fact discovery deadline, which remains May 31, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Continue Fact Discovery Deadline granted in part and denied in part“Upon consideration of the instant motion, declaration, supplemental joint statement, and arguments made during the discovery conference, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion as follows: 1. May 31, 2022 remains the deadline for completion of fact discovery, except for the following: a. The depositions of Plaintiff, Ms. Bola, Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Valencia, and Mr. Wingerberg must be taken on or before July 31, 2022.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b)(4) and Ninth Circuit precedent. The parties conceded they had not taken any depositions, which suggests a lack of diligence regarding the most critical discovery tool. However, the court allowed a limited extension for specific depositions while maintaining the strict deadline for all other discovery. This is a defensible exercise of discretion to balance the need for completion of key depositions with the requirement for diligence in meeting the original schedule. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order (good cause) and cites relevant Ninth Circuit authority. It notes the parties' concession that no depositions had been taken, which is a significant factor in assessing diligence. The court's decision to grant a limited extension for specific depositions while denying a blanket 90-day extension is a reasonable application of the good cause standard, balancing the need to complete essential discovery with the requirement for diligence.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KARINA MONTERO, Case No.: 3:21-cv-01431-L-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT 14 v. MOTION TO CONTINUE FACT 15 HYATT CORPORATION, doing DISCOVERY DEADLINE business as ANDAZ SAN DIEGO, 16 [ECF No. 19] Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Fact Discovery 21 Deadline. ECF No. 19. The parties seek to continue the fact discovery cutoff by 22 approximately 90 days. Id. 23 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause. FED. 24 R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 25 consent”); ECF No. 16 at ¶ 20 (operative scheduling order, stating that “[t]he dates and 26 times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 27 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 28 request”). 1 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 2 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 3 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 4 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 5 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 6 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 7 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). A “party demonstrates good cause by 8 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 9 Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 10 2018). 11 The deadline to complete fact discovery in this matter is May 31, 2022. ECF No. 16 12 at ¶ 3. In their joint motion, the parties represent to the Court that they “agree that a 13 continuance of the discovery cut-off from May 31, 2022, to August 31, 2022, would 14 provide sufficient time for the Parties to complete discovery and resolve any outstanding 15 discovery issues.” ECF No. 19 at 2 (emphasis omitted). The parties represent that they 16 “have been actively engaged in discovery[, …] have propounded written discovery[, and] 17 have provided substantive responses and [over 80,000] documents.” Id. at 2–3; ECF No. 18 19-1 at 2. The parties conceded, however, that “no depositions have been taken[.]” ECF 19 No. 19-1 at 2; ECF No. 19 at 3. 20 Upon review of the motion, the Court found that the motion lacked specificity 21 regarding the diligence required to establish good cause for a continuance, so it required 22 supplemental briefing. ECF No. 21. The parties’ supplemental Joint Statement detailed 23 what discovery remains to be completed. Email to Chambers (May 20, 2022 at 5:16 pm). 24 In their Joint Statement, the parties explained that there is no outstanding written discovery 25 and listed the depositions that they planned to take, noting that only two of them had firm 26 dates set. Id. After reviewing the parties’ Joint Statement, the Court then held a discovery 27 conference in the matter on May 23, 2022. ECF No. 22. 28 1 Upon consideration of the instant motion, declaration, supplemental joint statement, 2 ||and arguments made during the discovery conference, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 3 || DENIES IN PART the motion as follows: 4 1. May 31, 2022 remains the deadline for completion of fact discovery, except 5 || for the following: 6 a. The depositions of Plaintiff, Ms. Bola, Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Valencia, and 7 Mr. Wingerberg must be taken on or before July 31, 2022. No further 8 fact discovery will be allowed after the May 31, 2022 deadline without 9 first obtaining leave of Court. 10 2. All other dates, deadlines, procedures, and requirements set forth in the 11 |}Court’s December 15, 2021 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16) remain in place, except as 12 || explicitly modified by this Order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 23, 2022 4 16 Honorable Allison H. Goddard 7 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28