Hucker v. Daub
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed an ex parte application to extend the fact discovery deadline by 60 days to allow for the re-service of interrogatories and requests for production that Plaintiff claimed never received due to mailroom issues. The Court granted the motion, extending the deadline to June 30, 2022, specifically for the re-service and response to those limited discovery requests.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Modify the Scheduling Order is granted.“Upon consideration of the papers submitted, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion as follows:” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The order cites the relevant Ninth Circuit authority (Ahanchian and Johnson) establishing that good cause focuses on the moving party's diligence and reasons for modification. The court found that the failure to serve was due to 'routine problems with the mailroom' at the prison, which suggests the defendants were diligent in their attempt to serve (sent March 30, received April 4) but faced an external obstacle. Granting a limited extension to cure a service defect is a standard and appropriate exercise of discretion under the good cause standard. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)), cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent defining that standard, and applies the facts (mailroom issues preventing service despite timely mailing) to the standard. The relief granted is narrowly tailored to the specific issue (re-service of specific requests) rather than a blanket extension, which is appropriate. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this routine procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON HUCKER, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00577-JLS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE FACT DISCOVERY 14 CHRISTOPHER DAUB, et al., DEADLINE 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 31] 16 17 Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Modify the Scheduling 18 Order. ECF No. 31. Defendants seek to continue the fact discovery cutoff by approximately 19 60 days, to June 30, 2022, regarding specific discovery requests. Id. 20 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause. FED. 21 R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 22 consent”); ECF No. 26 at ¶ 18 (operative scheduling order, stating that “[t]he dates and 23 times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 24 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 25 request”). 26 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 27 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 28 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 1 || amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 2 || Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 3 || the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. .. . If that party was not diligent, the 4 ||inquiry should end.”’) (internal citation omitted). A “party demonstrates good cause by 5 ||acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 6 || Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 7 2018). 8 The deadline to complete fact discovery in this matter was May 2, 2022. ECF No. 26 9 || at § 2. In the instant motion, Defendants represent to the Court that, due to routine problems 10 || with the mailroom at RJD, Plaintiff never received Defendant Sharp’s interrogatories or 11 |/requests for production, although they were sent on March 30 and received by the prison 12 ||mailroom on April 4. ECF No. 31-1 at 2. Thus, Defendants seek to “extend the fact 13 ||discovery deadline to June 30, 2022, for the limited purpose of Defendant Sharp 14 || [re]serving, and Plaintiff responding to, Defendant Sharp’s interrogatories and requests for 15 || production of documents.” ECF No. 31 at 3; ECF No. 31-1 at § 2. 16 Upon consideration of the papers submitted, and good cause appearing, the Court 17 || GRANTS the motion as follows: 18 1. May 2, 2022 remains the deadline for completion of fact discovery, except 19 || for the following: 20 a. The deadline is extended to June 30, 2022 for the limited purpose of 21 Defendants re-serving, and Plaintiff responding to, Defendant Sharp’s 22 Interrogatories and Requests For Production, which were originally 23 attempted to be served on March 30, 2022. 24 2. All other dates, deadlines, procedures, and requirements set forth in the 25 ||Court’s November 10, 2021 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 26) remain in place, except as 26 || explicitly modified by this Order. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 Dated: June 1, 2022 _ArwiorwH. Xyolard , Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge