Corbett v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-00137 · 2023-12-11 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Allison H. Goddard (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:44Z · confidence high

The court considered the parties' opposed joint motion to continue the merits expert disclosure deadlines pending a ruling on class certification. The court granted the motion in part by vacating all dates in the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order and ordering the parties to contact the court within three days of the class certification ruling to arrange a settlement conference and case management conference.

What the court decided	The model
Opposed Joint Motion for Continuance granted in part and denied in part “Upon due consideration of the papers submitted, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ request follows: 1. All dates and deadlines set forth in the Court’s Fourth Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 170) are vacated.”	agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for modifying a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4), which requires a showing of good cause. The court found good cause appearing based on the parties' arguments regarding the necessity of a class certification ruling before merits expert discovery. The remedy of vacating the existing deadlines and requiring the parties to return to the court after the class certification ruling is a reasonable procedural mechanism to reset the schedule based on the outcome of the pending motion. The court's decision to deny the specific dates requested by Plaintiffs (60/105/135 days) while retaining discretion to set new deadlines later is consistent with the 'good cause' analysis which focuses on diligence and reasons for modification.

What the court decided

The model

Opposed Joint Motion for Continuance granted in part and denied in part

“Upon due consideration of the papers submitted, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ request follows: 1. All dates and deadlines set forth in the Court’s Fourth Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 170) are vacated.”

agree with court
The court applied the correct legal standard for modifying a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4), which requires a showing of good cause. The court found good cause appearing based on the parties' arguments regarding the necessity of a class certification ruling before merits expert discovery. The remedy of vacating the existing deadlines and requiring the parties to return to the court after the class certification ruling is a reasonable procedural mechanism to reset the schedule based on the outcome of the pending motion. The court's decision to deny the specific dates requested by Plaintiffs (60/105/135 days) while retaining discretion to set new deadlines later is consistent with the 'good cause' analysis which focuses on diligence and reasons for modification.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) good cause) and cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Johnson, Ahanchian) to support the court's discretion. The court addresses the parties' arguments regarding the need for a class certification ruling before expert discovery and the defendant's concerns about diligence and incurred expenses. The decision to vacate the current deadlines and defer setting new ones until after the class certification ruling is a logical and defensible procedural step that resolves the immediate conflict without prejudicing either party. The reasoning is sufficient for a district court order on a scheduling matter.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MONTIQUENO CORBETT, individually Case No.: 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG and on behalf of all others similarly 13 ORDER RESOLVING OPPOSED situated, et al., JOINT MOTION FOR 14 Plaintiffs, CONTINUANCE 15 v. [ECF No. 208] 16 PHARMACARE U.S., INC., 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Before the Court is the parties’ Opposed Joint Motion to Continue. ECF No. 208. 25 Plaintiffs seek a continuance of the merits expert disclosure deadlines, which Defendant 26 opposes. Id. 27 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order, or other deadlines set 28 forth by the Court, must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule 1 may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); see also ECF No. 170 2 at 6 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates [] set forth herein will not be modified 3 except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance 4 requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). 5 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 6 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 7 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 8 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 9 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 10 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 11 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 12 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. 13 ... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 14 Plaintiffs request that that the deadline for initial expert designations and reports be 15 reset to 60 days after any order on class certification, the deadline for rebuttal expert 16 designations and reports be reset to 105 days after any order on class certification, and the 17 deadline for expert discovery deadline be reset to 135 days after any order on class 18 certification. ECF No. 208-1 at 3. Plaintiffs argue that a ruling on the pending class 19 certification motion is needed before merits expert discovery commences because, “[i]n 20 order to conduct their expert analysis, particularly their damages analysis, Plaintiffs’ 21 experts will need to know whether this case is continuing as a class action and the scope of 22 the case and the claims at issue.” ECF No. 208-2 at 2. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have 23 not established good cause for a continuance, due to a lack of diligence. ECF No. 208-1 at 24 4. Further, Defendant explains that it “has begun merits expert work and incurred expenses 25 preparing for the expert disclosure deadline[,] and argues that Plaintiffs’ expert analysis 26 must be performed whether or not this case proceeds as a class action. ECF No. 208-1 at 7; 27 ECF No. 208-3 at 3. Upon due consideration of the papers submitted, good cause 28 1 || appearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART! Plaintiffs’ request 2 follows: 3 1. All dates and deadlines set forth in the Court’s Fourth Amended Scheduling 4 || Order (ECF No. 170) are vacated. 5 2. Within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the 6 || parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at efile_goddard @casd.uscourts.gov) to 7 ||arrange a settlement conference (see ECF No. 207) and a further case management 8 || conference. ? IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: December 11, 2023 _ Dram. Xo Honorable Allison H. Goddard 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 || OO 26 Though the Court is not setting the deadlines at this time, the Court notes that the 27 ||lengthiest deadlines customarily set in similar cases include 30 days for initial expert 28 designations and reports, 30 days for rebuttal expert designations and reports, and 30 days for expert discovery and depositions.