Palasi v. Transunion, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to extend discovery deadlines in a civil action. It granted the motion in part, extending specific deadlines related to a pending deposition and expert reports, while denying the request for a blanket ninety-day extension.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines granted in part and denied in part“Good cause appearing, the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b)(4) by limiting the extension to the specific, remaining discovery tasks identified by the parties (PMK deposition and expert reports) rather than granting the full 90-day extension requested. This aligns with the requirement that deadlines be modified only if they cannot be met despite diligence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) 'good cause'), cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson), and applies the standard to the specific facts presented (remaining discovery tasks). The court appropriately tailored the relief to the specific needs of the case rather than granting the full requested extension.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREA PALASI, Case No.: 22-CV-1888-AJB-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION 13 v. TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 14 TRANSUNION, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On July 7, 2023, the Parties submitted a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Extend 19 Discovery Deadlines seeking a ninety-day extension of the Court’s Scheduling Order. 20 (“Joint Motion”, Doc. No. 24.) On July 10, 2023, the Court convened a Joint Telephonic 21 Status Conference to discuss the Joint Motion. (Doc. No. 27.) Brett F. Bodie appeared on 22 behalf of Plaintiff Andrea Palasi. Robin G. Sagstetter appeared on behalf of Defendant IQ 23 Data International, Inc. Having conferred with counsel and reviewed the Joint Motion, the 24 Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 25 Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 16(b)(4)”) governs 26 when a Court may modify a scheduling order. In determining whether to modify a 27 scheduling order, the Court considers the “good cause” standard set out by Rule 16(b)(4). 28 Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the parties 1 seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot 2 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. 3 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 4 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment); Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck 5 Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J.1990); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 6 132 F.R.D. 213, 217 (N.D.Ind.1990); Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 7 1987); 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d 8 ed. 1990) (“good cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s 9 diligence). Moreover, Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires all counsel “take all steps 10 necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” Civ. L.R. 16.1(b). 11 In the Joint Motion and during the Joint Telephonic Status Conference, counsel for 12 the Parties represented that the only discovery remaining in the case is related to the 13 deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”), Plaintiff’s expert’s 14 review of Defendant’s PMK’s deposition transcript, and Plaintiff’s expert’s production of 15 his expert report and rebuttal expert report. (Doc. No. 24 at 4-5.) Good cause appearing, 16 the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 17 The July 14, 2023 fact and expert discovery deadlines are modified solely for the 18 purposes of allowing (1) the Parties to conduct the deposition of Defendant’s PMK, (2) 19 Plaintiff’s expert’s review of Defendant’s PMK’s deposition transcript, and (3) Plaintiff’s 20 expert’s to produce his expert report and rebuttal report. Accordingly, the February 14, 21 2023 Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 13) is modified as follows: 22 Deadline Current Date New Date 23 Expert Designations May 12, 2023 August 11, 2023 24 Rebuttal Expert Designations June 14, 2023 August 25, 2023 25 Expert Disclosures May 12, 2023 August 11, 2023 26 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures June 14, 2023 August 25, 2023 27 Fact and Expert Discovery Cutoff July 14, 2023 September 1, 2023 28 | ||| Pre-trial Motions Cutoff August 14, 2023 October 2, 2023 2 ||| Mandatory Settlement August 8, 2023 September 15, 2023 at 3 ||) Conference 9:00 a.m. 4 Pre-trial Disclosures November 16, 2023 January 4, 2024 Pre-trial Order Meet and Confer November 22, 2023 January 11, 2024 5 Objections to Pre-trial Order November 30, 2023 January 18, 2024 6 ||| Proposed Pre-trial Conference December 7, 2023 January 25, 2024 7 Order Pre-trial Conference December 14, 2023 at | February 1, 2024 at 8 2:30 pm 2:00 p.m. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || DATED: July 11, 2023 12 LA 13 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28