Estate of David Angel Villalobos Valdovinos v. Gonsalves
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to extend the expert discovery and pretrial motion deadlines by 30 days due to a delay in deposing an expert witness. The Court granted the motion in part, extending the deadline for the specific expert deposition to October 4, 2023, and the pretrial motion deadline to October 31, 2023.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Extend Certain Scheduling Order Deadlines granted in part“Upon due consideration, the Court finds good cause to GRANT IN PART the motion as follows: 1. September 12, 2023 remains the deadline for completion of expert discovery, except for the following: a. Roger Clark’s deposition must be taken on or before October 4, 2023. 2. Except for motions in limine, all pretrial motions must be filed no later than October 31, 2023.” | agree with court The Court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b)(4) and Ninth Circuit precedent. The parties demonstrated diligence by timely noticing the deposition, which was delayed due to an external factor (another trial). The Court appropriately tailored the relief to the specific need (the deposition date) rather than granting a blanket 30-day extension, which it noted might be inadequate or unnecessary. The modification is consistent with the law and the record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)), cites binding Ninth Circuit authority defining that standard, and applies it to the specific facts (diligent notice, external delay). The Court’s decision to grant a tailored extension rather than the requested blanket extension is a prudent exercise of discretion supported by the record. The footnote regarding the missing declaration is a minor procedural observation that does not affect the substantive ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ESTATE OF DAVID ANGEL Case No.: 3:22-cv-00315-L-AHG VILLALOBOS VALDOVINOS, et al., 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiffs, JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND 14 CERTAIN SCHEDULING ORDER v. 15 DEADLINES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 16 [ECF No. 35] Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to modify the scheduling order. ECF 21 No. 35. The parties seek an order from the Court extending the expert discovery deadline 22 and pretrial motion filing deadline by approximately 30 days. Id. 23 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 24 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 25 the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 32 at 7 (Amended Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he 26 dates [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also 27 Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause 28 for the request”). 1 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 2 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 3 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 4 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 5 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 6 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 7 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 8 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 9 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 10 19, 2018). 11 Here, the expert discovery cutoff is presently September 12, 2023, and the deadline 12 for the parties to file pretrial motions is October 10, 2023. ECF No. 32. The parties have 13 represented to the Court that they need more time to conduct the deposition of Roger Clark, 14 Plaintiffs’ Use of Force Expert. ECF No. 35 at 2. Though his deposition was timely noticed 15 for September 11, 2023, it was postponed due to a trial commencing in another matter. Id. 16 As of the date the instant motion was filed, the parties were unable to confirm Mr. Clark’s 17 availability for a rescheduled deposition. Id. Thus, the parties request an order from the 18 Court extending the expert discovery deadline from September 12 to October 12, for the 19 purpose of completing Mr. Clark’s deposition, and continuing the deadline for filing 20 pretrial motions, from October 10 to November 10, so that the parties may obtain the 21 deposition transcript in time to draft their motions. Id. 22 Without knowing the firm date of Mr. Clark’s rescheduled deposition, the requested 23 30-day extensions may be unnecessary or inadequate—i.e., if the deposition was scheduled 24 one week later or two months later, a 30-day extension would not be prudent in either 25 scenario. Thus, the Court required supplemental information from the parties: the firm date 26 for Mr. Clark’s deposition. ECF No. 36. On September 18, 2023, counsel informed the 27 Court that Mr. Clark’s deposition is scheduled for October 2, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. Email to 28 Chambers (Sept. 18, 2023, at 4:02 PM). 1 Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings,' the Court appreciates that the parties are 2 || working together. Upon due consideration, the Court finds good cause to GRANT IN 3 PART the motion as follows: 4 1. September 12, 2023 remains the deadline for completion of expert discovery, 5 except for the following: 6 a. Roger Clark’s deposition must be taken on or before October 4, 2023. 7 2. Except for motions in limine, all pretrial motions must be filed no later than 8 || October 31, 2023. 9 3. All other deadlines and procedures set forth in the Court’s First Amended 10 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 32) remain unchanged. i IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: September 19, 2023 13 _ Atwamd. □□□ Honorable Allison H. Goddard 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Compare Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that all requests for continuances include a “declaration from the counsel seeking the continuance that describes the steps taken to comply with the 27 || existing deadlines, and the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”) with ECF 28 No. 35 (no declaration).