Romero v. United States Department of Justice

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO ROMERO, Case No.: 19-CV-2138-JAH(WVG)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EX PARTE MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER TO 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EXTEND DISCOVERY FOR THE JUSTICE et al., 15 PURPOSES OF TAKING LOUIS Defendants. WILLIAMS’ DEPOSITION 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Modify the 19 Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery for the Purpose of Taking Louis Williams’ 20 Deposition filed on June 16, 2022 (“Ex Parte Motion”). (Doc. No. 42.) The Court accepts 21 the Ex Parte Motion as unopposed in light of Defendant’s failure to file an opposition or 22 notify the court by June 17, 2022 of Defendant’s need for additional time to file an 23 opposition. In addition, according to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion, Defendant has no 24 opposition to the proposed request. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion requested the Court extend 25 the fact discovery deadline for the sole purpose of taking the deposition of Louis Williams. 26 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion is GRANTED. 27 Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 16(b)(4)”) governs 28 when a Court may modify a scheduling order. In determining whether to modify a 1 scheduling order, the Court considers the “good cause” standard set out by Rule 16(b)(4). 2 Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the parties 3 seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot 4 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. 5 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 6 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment); Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck 7 Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J.1990); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 8 132 F.R.D. 213, 217 (N.D.Ind.1990); Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 9 1987); 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d 10 ed. 1990) (“good cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s 11 diligence). Moreover, Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires all counsel “take all steps 12 necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” Civ. L.R. 16.1(b). 13 The Court finds good cause exists as the Parties have made a diligent effort to 14 conduct discovery within the Scheduling Order’s deadlines. The Parties have completed 15 written discovery and conducted six depositions within the Court’s June 17, 2022 fact 16 discovery cut off. Plaintiff issued a subpoena for the deposition of Louis Williams on June 17 3, 2022, setting the deposition for June 16, 2022. On June 7, 2022, Mr. Williams was served 18 with the subpoena, and it was not until June 14, 2022 that Defendant’s counsel informed 19 Plaintiff that Mr. Williams was unavailable for the June 16, 2022 deposition. 20 Although flirting with the fact discovery deadline in serving the deposition subpoena 21 for Louis Williams when Plaintiff did, the Court finds Plaintiff has made a diligent effort 22 to conduct discovery within the Scheduling Order’s deadlines. Accordingly, the Court 23 GRANTS Plaintiff’s Ex Parte request to continue the fact discovery deadline for the sole 24 purpose of deposing Louis Williams. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 The parties are to depose Louis Williams no later than July 15, 2022. No changes 2 || beyond those made in this order shall affect any other deadlines in the Court’s Scheduling 3 || Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: June 21, 2022 LA Ss 7 Hon. William V. Gallo 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28