Hendon v. California State Senate
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Mitchell D. Dembin (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff moved for a 120-day extension of the discovery deadline, arguing good cause based on her diligence and personal challenges. The court denied the requested 120-day extension but granted a 30-day extension, moving the deadline from October 11, 2022, to November 14, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for 120-day extension of discovery deadline denied“Plaintiff’s motion for 120 additional days to conduct discovery is DENIED.” | agree with court The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the requisite diligence under the 'good cause' standard, specifically noting that she waited until four months into the discovery period to serve written discovery requests, which made it impossible to complete discovery within the original deadline even if responses were timely. The court correctly applied the principle that a party's lack of diligence ends the inquiry into good cause. |
30-day extension of discovery deadline granted“The Court, considering the personal challenges expressed by Plaintiff's counsel, will extend discovery for 30 additional days. The discovery deadline date is extended from October 11, 2022, to November 14, 2022.” | agree with court While the court denied the motion for the full 120 days due to lack of diligence, it exercised its discretion to grant a shorter 30-day extension based on the personal challenges cited by counsel. This is a discretionary act within the court's power to manage its docket and ensure fairness, even if the strict 'good cause' for the full extension was not met. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for modifying a scheduling order (good cause and diligence) and applies it to the facts. It notes the plaintiff's failure to serve discovery requests until late in the period, which logically precludes a finding of diligence sufficient to justify a large extension. The grant of a shorter, discretionary extension is a reasonable exercise of judicial management.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAWN HENDON, Case No.: 21cv505-RSH-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDERNING DENYING IN 13 v. PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 14 CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE, et DISCOVERY DEADLINE al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This case involves allegations of employment discrimination. (ECF No. 18 10 [Am. Compl.]). Plaintiff currently seeks an extension of time to conduct 19 discovery. (ECF No. 20). In her ex parte motion, Plaintiff represents that 20 Defendants would not stipulate to her requested extension, but she argues 21 that good cause for modifying the Scheduling Order is presented. The Court 22 disagrees. 23 Background 24 The Court entered a Scheduling Order in this case on May 9, 2022. 25 (ECF No. 17). The parties were given five months to conduct discovery. (Id.) 26 All discovery is set to conclude in three weeks, on October 11, 2022, and 1 Plaintiff cites the Court’s general admonition, which was given to the 2 parties in this case, that discovery deadlines may at times be extended if the 3 parties can establish that they have diligently sought to meet existing 4 deadlines. (ECF No. 20 at 2-3). On July 11, 2022, during a status conference 5 with this Court, Plaintiff’s counsel suggested Plaintiff would need more time 6 to conduct discovery. (See id.). The Court explained to counsel that her 7 request was premature and urged the parties to complete discovery on time. 8 (See id.). If the parties needed more time for discovery, the Court advised the 9 parties to present a joint motion showing good cause and reflecting diligence 10 in attempting to meet the existing deadlines. (See id.). The Court specifically 11 advised the parties to schedule and/or complete the depositions of the 12 Defendants’ depositions as quickly as possible and to seek the Court’s 13 assistance in that regard if needed. 14 In her motion to extend discovery, Plaintiff argues that she was diligent 15 by: (1) producing 600 documents to Defendants; (2) being deposed on July 8, 16 2022 (three days prior to the July status conference); (3) responding to 30 17 Requests for Production; and, (4) serving her first Requests for Production 18 and Special Interrogatories to Defendants on September 16, 2022. (ECF No. 19 20 at 3). 20 Legal Standard 21 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 22 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 23 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the 24 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not 25 diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. (citation omitted). “A scheduling order 26 is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 1 20CV1058-JO (MSB), 2022 WL 63043, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2022) (citation 2 omitted). “Disregard of the order would undermine the court’s ability to 3 control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and 4 reward the indolent and the cavalier.” Id. 5 Discussion 6 The Scheduling Order in this case specifically advised the parties as 7 follows: 8 All discovery, including expert discovery, shall be completed by all parties by October 11, 2022. Completed means that 9 interrogatories, requests for production, and other discovery 10 requests must be served at least thirty (30) days prior to the established cutoff date so that responses thereto will be due on or 11 before the cutoff date. 12 (ECF No. 17 ¶ 4). Plaintiff does not adequately explain why she waited until 13 September 16, 2022, four months into the five-month discovery period to 14 serve written discovery requests. Plaintiff asserts that she needs Defendants’ 15 responses to her September 16, 2022, discovery requests “to identify key 16 witnesses and prepare for her depositions of Defendants.” (ECF No. 20 at 3). 17 Defendants’ responses, if served on September 16, 2022, would not even be 18 due until October 16, 2022, five days after the discovery cut-off date, and 19 outside the parameters of the Scheduling Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33-34. 20 In a footnote, Plaintiff’s counsel refers to personal family challenges she 21 has faced during the past year, and the Court is sympathetic to that issue. 22 (See ECF No. 20 at 3 n.1). If counsel could not adequately pursue the needed 23 discovery, she should have associated with counsel who could timely pursue 24 discovery. 25 Plaintiff’s motion for 120 additional days to conduct discovery is 26 DENIED. The Court, considering the personal challenges expressed by 1 || Plaintiff's counsel, will extend discovery for 30 additional days. The 2 || discovery deadline date is extended from October 11, 2022, to November 14, 3 ||2022. All other dates remain as previously scheduled. Any further request 4 ||for an extension must be supported by extraordinary cause. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 20, 2022 Mitel bs [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27