Chen v. Allied Waste Systems, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to extend expert discovery and pretrial motion deadlines by approximately 45 days. The court granted the motion in part, refusing to set specific new dates, and instead ordered the parties to return for a case management conference after the ruling on the pending class certification motion to reset the deadlines.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Extend Expert Discovery Deadlines and Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline granted in part“The Court finds good cause to GRANT IN PART the joint motion. ECF No. 77.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16(b)(4) and local rules. The parties demonstrated diligence and provided a valid reason for the delay (dependence on class certification scope). The court's decision to defer setting specific dates until the class certification motion is resolved is a sound exercise of discretion, as the scope of expert work is directly tied to the class definition. Granting the motion 'in part' by refusing the specific dates requested but allowing the extension in principle is a logical procedural step. |
Issuance of First Amended Scheduling Order requiring future conference after class certification ruling“Within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the parties must jointly contact the Court via email... to arrange a further case management conference.” | agree with court This is a procedural directive consistent with the court's management of the case. It ensures that deadlines are set with full knowledge of the class scope, preventing the need for further amendments if the class is certified or denied. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard (good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)), cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the definition of that standard, and applies the facts (diligence, need for time due to class certification uncertainty) to the standard. The decision to defer setting specific dates is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion given the pending class certification motion which will dictate the scope of expert work. There are no significant gaps or legal errors.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 QIHAI CHEN and DUALTONE Case No.: 3:22-cv-00099-JO-AHG AUTOMOTIVE, INC., 13 ORDER: on behalf of themselves and all others 14 similarly situated, (1) GRANTING IN PART JOINT 15 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND 16 v. PRETRIAL MOTION FILING 17 ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., DEADLINE, and et al., 18 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED Defendants. 19 SCHEDULING ORDER 20 [ECF No. 77] 21 22 23 24 25 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order. ECF 26 No. 77. The parties seek an order from the Court extending the expert disclosure deadline, 27 rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, expert discovery cutoff, and pretrial motion filling 28 deadline by approximately 45 days. Id. 1 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 2 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 3 the judge’s consent”); see also AHG.Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance 4 requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). 5 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 6 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 7 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 8 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 9 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 10 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 11 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 12 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 13 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 14 19, 2018). 15 Here, expert disclosures are due December 4, 2023; rebuttal expert disclosures are 16 due December 18, 2023; the expert discovery cutoff is January 22, 2024; and the pretrial 17 motion filing deadline is February 19, 2024. ECF No. 49 at 2–3. The parties have 18 represented to the Court that they have been working diligently to abide by the Court’s 19 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 49). ECF No. 77-1. Both sides have designated experts, 20 including damages experts. Id. at 3. However, the parties’ experts need more time to 21 complete their analysis, based on whether (and to what scope) a class is certified. Id. The 22 parties also seek to participate in settlement discussions ahead of expert report deadlines, 23 to reduce litigation costs. Id. As such, the parties request that the Court extend certain 24 scheduling order deadlines by approximately six to seven weeks—e.g., extend the expert 25 disclosure deadline to January 22, 2024; the rebuttal expert disclosures deadline to 26 February 5, 2024; the expert discovery cutoff to March 4, 2024; and the pretrial motion 27 filing deadline to April 1, 2024. ECF No. 77 at 3–4. 28 / / 1 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to complete 2 || discovery. Upon due consideration, and upon a review of the docket, the Court finds good 3 || cause to GRANT IN PART! the joint motion. ECF No. 77. The Court issues the following 4 || First Amended Scheduling Order: 5 1. The Mandatory Settlement Conference remains on _ calendar for 6 || January 3, 2024 at 9:30 am. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard via 7 ||videoconference. The parties must comply with all procedures, requirements, and 8 deadlines set forth in ECF No. 67. 9 2. Within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the 10 || parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at efile_goddard @casd.uscourts.gov) to 11 arrange a further case management conference. During the case management conference, 12 || the Court will set new deadlines for expert disclosures, expert discovery, pretrial motions, 13 || and the pretrial conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 14, 2023 16 _ Apion. Honorable Allison H. Goddard V7 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 ||' Though the parties suggest specific dates for the deadlines they seek to extend, the Court 28 has considered the procedural posture of the case and has determined that those deadlines should be reset after the class certification motion is decided, not beforehand.