Sanchez Silva v. United States of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to extend the expert discovery deadline by approximately 35 days due to the volume of expert witnesses and counsel availability. The court granted the motion, setting the new expert discovery deadline for November 17, 2022, and the pretrial motion deadline for November 25, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion to Extend Expert Discovery Deadline“The Court appreciates the parties’ thorough motion and declaration, and finds good cause to GRANT the motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and the local scheduling order. The parties provided specific reasons for the extension, including the number of expert witnesses (27) and the unavailability of lead counsel for both sides during the original deadline period. The court's finding that these factors constitute good cause is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent cited in the order (Ahanchian and Johnson). The court also proactively adjusted the pretrial motion deadline to ensure it did not precede the new expert discovery deadline, which is a logical and necessary procedural adjustment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)), cites relevant Ninth Circuit authority to define that standard, and applies the standard to the specific facts presented (diligence, volume of experts, counsel availability). The court also identified a logical inconsistency in the parties' request (that the pretrial motion deadline would fall before the new expert discovery deadline) and corrected it, demonstrating careful review of the scheduling implications.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JUAN JOSE SANCHEZ SILVA, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00589-WQH-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND 14 v. EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, [ECF No. 31] 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order. ECF 20 No. 31. The parties seek an order from the Court extending the expert discovery deadline 21 by approximately 35 days. Id. 22 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 23 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 24 the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 30 at 5 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates set forth 25 herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 26 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). 27 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 28 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 1 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 2 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 3 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 4 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 5 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 6 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 7 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8 19, 2018). 9 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they have been working 10 cooperatively and diligently to abide by the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30). ECF 11 No. 31 at 1. The parties represent that there are 27 expert witnesses in this case, many of 12 whom will likely need to be deposed upon completion of their reports. ECF No. 31-1 at 2; 13 ECF No. 31 at 1. Further, Plaintiff’s lead counsel will be out of the country from 14 September 15 until September 22, and Defendant’s lead counsel will be out of the country 15 from September 19 until October 4. ECF No. 31-1 at 2. Thus, due to the voluminous scope 16 of expert discovery in this case and availability of counsel, the parties seek an order from 17 the Court extending the expert discovery cutoff from October 13 to November 17. ECF 18 No. 31. 19 The Court appreciates the parties’ thorough motion and declaration, and finds good 20 cause to GRANT1 the motion. ECF No. 31. The Court ORDERS the following: 21 1. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by November 17, 2022. 22 2. All other pretrial motions must be filed by November 25, 2022. Counsel must 23 obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The 24 25 26 1 Though the parties noted that “such an extension would not adversely impact other pretrial 27 dates[,]” if left unchanged, the pretrial motion deadline (November 10, 2022) would pass before the new expert discovery cutoff (November 17, 2022). Thus, the Court has slightly 28 1 || period of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary 2 || from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request 3 ||for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. Motions in limine are to be 4 || filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the district judge. 5 3. All other dates, deadlines, and procedures set forth in the Court’s First 6 || Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30) remain in place, except as explicitly modified 7 || by this Order. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: August 17, 2022 hn NMoev tH. oviolan A Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28