Reel v. Johnson

District Court, S.D. California · 3:22-cv-00526 · 2023-10-30 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Lupe Rodriguez (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:46Z · confidence high

The parties filed a joint motion to continue discovery deadlines and pretrial dates, citing the need to process large document productions and take additional depositions. The court granted the motion in part, modifying the scheduling order to extend fact and expert discovery deadlines but setting dates earlier than those requested by the parties.

What the court decided	The model
Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Granted in Part “The Court concludes that good cause exists to modify most of the events in the parties’ joint motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part the motion to allow the parties additional time to complete fact and expert discovery.”	agree with court The court applied the correct standard under Rule 16(b)(4) and the Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.) requiring good cause and diligence. The parties provided specific reasons for the delay (large document productions, need for additional depositions), which supports a finding of good cause. The court’s decision to grant the motion in part by setting dates earlier than requested is within its discretion to manage the docket and prevent undue delay, especially given this was the third request for amendments.

What the court decided

The model

Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order Granted in Part

“The Court concludes that good cause exists to modify most of the events in the parties’ joint motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part the motion to allow the parties additional time to complete fact and expert discovery.”

agree with court
The court applied the correct standard under Rule 16(b)(4) and the Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.) requiring good cause and diligence. The parties provided specific reasons for the delay (large document productions, need for additional depositions), which supports a finding of good cause. The court’s decision to grant the motion in part by setting dates earlier than requested is within its discretion to manage the docket and prevent undue delay, especially given this was the third request for amendments.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4) and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority, Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. The court explicitly finds that good cause exists based on the parties' explanation of pending discovery obligations. The decision to grant the motion in part, rather than in full, is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to balance the need for additional time against the interest in judicial economy, particularly given the history of multiple amendments. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural scheduling order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON REEL, Case No.: 22cv526-W(LR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 CITY OF EL CENTRO, et al., REGARDING DISCOVERY 15 Defendants. DEADLINES AND PRE-TRIAL DATES 16 17 [ECF No. 51] 18 19 Currently before the Court is the parties’ “Joint Motion and Stipulation to Continue 20 Discovery Deadlines and Pre-trial Dates,” in which the parties ask the Court to continue 21 nearly every remaining event in the scheduling order for this matter, including: (1) 22 continue the fact discovery deadline by approximately two months, (2) continue some 23 expert discovery deadlines, and (3) continue the remaining settlement conferences and 24 case management conferences. (ECF No. 51.) This is the parties’ third request to amend 25 the scheduling order, and the second time that the parties have requested modification of 26 both fact discovery and expert discovery dates. (See ECF Nos. 47, 49, 51.) 27 To demonstrate good cause to continue these events, counsel explain that they have 28 exchanged two large sets of document production requests, requests for admission, and 1 interrogatories since the written discovery deadline of September 15, 2023, that still 2 require the production of thousands of documents. (ECF No. 51 at 2-3.) The parties note 3 that the review of their responses to these requests will take more time than originally 4 anticipated, and will likely lead to the taking and defending of additional depositions 5 before the end of the fact discovery deadline. (See id.) As such, the parties request that 6 the events in listed in the scheduling order (ECF No. 38) be modified as noted in the table 7 below. The Court includes relevant docket numbers in the “Current Deadline/Scheduled 8 Time” column to reflect the most recent amendments to the original scheduling order. 9 Event Current Proposed Deadline 10 Deadline/Scheduled Time 11 Fact Discovery deadline November 17, 2023 January 12, 2024 12 (ECF No. 48) Follow-up Settlement November 16, 2023, at January 12, 2024 13 Conference 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 50) 14 Expert Designation November 17, 2023 January 12, 2024 15 (ECF No. 48) Telephonic Case January 10, 20241 (ECF March 6, 2024 16 Management Conference No. 50) 17 (“TCMC”) Exchange of Rebuttal December 1, 2023 January 26, 2024 18 Experts (ECF No. 48.) 19 Mandatory Settlement December 13, 2023 February 7, 2024 Conference (“MSC”) (ECF No. 30) 20 Confidential Settlement December 6, 2023 January 31, 2024 21 Briefs for the MSC (ECF No. 30) Expert Disclosure January 5, 2024 (ECF March 1, 2024 22 No. 48) 23 Supplemental Disclosure January 19, 2024 (ECF March 15, 2024 No. 48) 24 25 26 27 1 Although the Joint Motion contains two continuance requests for separate TCMCs, the Court has only scheduled one TCMC in this case, which was continued from November 22, 2023 to January 10, 2024. 28 1 Expert Discovery Deadline January 12, 2024 (ECF April 12, 2024 No. 38) 2 Pretrial Motions February 16, 2024 April 12, 2024 3 (ECF No. 38) Pretrial disclosures May 13, 2024 (ECF No. July 15, 2024 4 38) 5 Meet and confer re: Pretrial May 20, 2024 (ECF No. July 22, 2024 Conference 38) 6 Deadline for Plaintiff’s May 27, 2024 (ECF No. July 29, 2024 7 counsel to provide 38) opposing counsel with 8 proposed pretrial order 9 Proposed Final Pretrial June 3, 2024 (ECF No. August 5, 2024 10 Conference Order Lodged 38) Informal Letter Briefs June 12, 2024, at 2:30 August 14, 2024, at 11 p.m. (ECF No. 38) 2:30 p.m. 12 Final Pretrial Conference June 17, 2024, at 10:30 August 19, 2024 at 13 a.m. (ECF No. 38) 10:30 a.m. 14 15 (See id. at 4-5.) 16 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 17 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the 18 diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial 19 schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 20 extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 21 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes and collecting cases). “If that party 22 was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 23 The Court concludes that good cause exists to modify most of the events in the 24 parties’ joint motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part the motion to allow the 25 26 27 2 Although the parties list the current deadline for this event as February 16, 2024, (see ECF No. 51 at 28 1 parties additional time to complete fact and expert discovery. As a summary, the Court 2 modifies the scheduling order as follows: 3 Event Current Amended Deadline 4 Deadline/Scheduled 5 Time Fact Discovery deadline November 17, 2023 January 12, 2024 6 (ECF No. 48) 7 Follow-up Settlement November 16, 2023, at January 24, 2024, at Conference 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 50) 9:30 a.m. 8 Expert Designation November 17, 2023 January 5, 2024 9 (ECF No. 48) Exchange of Rebuttal December 1, 2023 January 19, 2024 10 Experts (ECF No. 48.) 11 Mandatory Settlement December 13, 2023 March 13, 2024, at Conference (“MSC”) (ECF No. 30) 12 9:30 a.m. 13 Confidential Settlement December 6, 2023 March 6, 2024 Briefs for the MSC (ECF No. 30) 14 Expert Disclosure January 5, 2024 (ECF February 23, 2024 15 No. 48) Supplemental Disclosure January 19, 2024 (ECF March 8, 2024 16 No. 48) 17 Expert Discovery Deadline January 12, 2024 (ECF March 29, 2024 No. 38) 18 Pretrial Motions Filing February 16, 2024 April 26, 2024 19 Cutoff (ECF No. 38) Pretrial Disclosures May 13, 2024 (ECF No. July 8, 2024 20 38) 21 Meet and Confer about May 20, 2024 (ECF No. July 15, 2024 22 Pretrial Conference 38) Proposed Pretrial Order to May 27, 2024 (ECF No. July 22, 2024 23 Opposing Counsel 38) 24 Proposed Pretrial June 3, 2024 (ECF No. July 29, 2024 Conference Order Served 38) 25 and Lodged with district 26 judge Informal Letter Briefs to June 12, 2024 by 2:30 August 7, 2024, by 27 district judge’s chambers p.m. (ECF No. 38) 2:30 p.m. 28 1 Final Pretrial Conference June 17, 2024 at 10:30 | August 12, 2024, at 3 4 All other requirements and deadlines from the Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 5 remain in effect. The Court notes that the extensions outlined above provide the 6 || parties with nearly two additional months to complete expert discovery, file pretrial 7 ||motions, and prepare this case for trial. Any additional extension requests will therefore 8 || be strongly disfavored absent extraordinary circumstances. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 30, 2023 11 12 / Le 13 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28