Burgess v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael S. Berg (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to modify the scheduling order to extend expert deadlines due to a stipulated discovery extension and pending depositions. The court denied the motion for lack of good cause but sua sponte continued the expert designation deadlines and set a telephonic case management conference.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order“The Court does not find good cause for the requested amendments to the scheduling order and therefore DENIES the joint motion without prejudice.” | unsure The court applied the correct legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) good cause) and cited the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.). However, the order fails to explain why the specific facts cited by the parties (stipulated extension and pending depositions) did not constitute good cause. While the result is procedurally defensible, the lack of reasoning makes it difficult to verify if the application of the law to the facts was correct. |
Continuation of Expert Designation Deadlines“The expert designation deadline previously set for October 7, 2022, is CONTINUED to November 21, 2022. The rebuttal expert designation deadline is CONTINUED from October 21, 2022, to December 5, 2022.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and prevent prejudice to the parties, which is a standard judicial function. The specific dates are not explained, but the action is consistent with the court's duty to ensure a fair trial. |
Setting of Telephonic Case Management Conference“The Court SETS a telephonic Case Management Conference on October 12, 2022, at 12:30 p.m.” | agree with court This is a routine procedural order to address the issues raised in the denied motion and ensure the case moves forward. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent. However, it fails to apply that standard to the specific facts presented in the joint motion (the stipulated extension and the pending depositions). It simply states that good cause was not found without explanation. This is a gap in reasoning, as the court does not address whether the parties were diligent or why the cited reasons were insufficient. The sua sponte modification of the deadlines is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to prevent prejudice, but the lack of explanation for the denial of the motion makes the order's reasoning incomplete.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW BURGESS, Case No.: 21cv616-MMA (MSB) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER: (1) DENYING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF NO. 39], 15 Defendants. (2) SETTING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AND 16 (3) CONTINUING EXPERT DESIGNATION 17 DEADLINES 18 19 20 On October 6, 2022, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling 21 Order,” asking the Court to continue their expert designation deadlines by 22 approximately 60 days, their expert disclosures deadlines by approximately 30 days, and 23 their expert discovery cut-off date by just over three weeks. (ECF No. 39.) In support, 24 the parties cite a stipulated two-week extension of Defendants’ deadline to respond to 25 Plaintiff’s written discovery served on September 23, 2022, and the fact that the parties 26 “have been unable to conduct key depositions of Plaintiff and Defendant Officer Huff.” 27 (Id. at 3.) 28 / / / 1 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 2 ||consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the 3 || diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the 4 || pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 5 ||seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 6 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) and 7 || collecting cases). “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 8 The Court does not find good cause for the requested amendments to the 9 || scheduling order and therefore DENIES the joint motion without prejudice. However, to 10 || ensure the parties aren’t prejudiced by the Court’s denial of this order, the Court 11 || CONTINUES certain dates as follows: The expert designation deadline previously set for 12 || October 7, 2022, is CONTINUED to November 21, 2022. The rebuttal expert designation 13 || deadline is CONTINUED from October 21, 2022, to December 5, 2022. 14 The Court SETS a telephonic Case Management Conference on October 12, 2022, 15 |] at 12:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to arrange the joint call to chambers at 16 ||(619) 557-6632. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: October 7, 2022 - = 19 a” BAL Honorable Michael S. Berg 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28