Sexton v. Mitratech Holdings, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Bernard G. Skomal (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to extend the fact discovery deadline due to the pending motion to withdraw of plaintiff's counsel, which prevented the plaintiff's deposition. The court granted the motion in part, extending the deadline for the specific depositions to 30 days after the disposition of the motion to withdraw, while keeping all other deadlines in effect.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Third Joint Motion to Amend (extend fact discovery) granted in part“The motion is GRANTED IN PART.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for modifying a scheduling order. The court found good cause existed because the previous extension was specifically for depositions, and the plaintiff's counsel was unable to conduct the plaintiff's deposition due to a pending motion to withdraw. The court limited the extension to the specific depositions at issue, which is a reasonable and legally sound application of the rule given the facts recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Rule 16(b)(4) good cause) and cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations) regarding the focus on diligence. The court's factual findings regarding the pending motion to withdraw and the specific purpose of the prior extension provide a sufficient basis for finding good cause. The limitation of the extension to the specific depositions is a prudent exercise of discretion that balances the need for discovery with the necessity of maintaining the overall schedule.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN SEXTON, Case No.: 23-CV-00375-W-BGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 12 v. THIRD JOINT MOTION TO AMEND 13 MITRATECH, INC., 14 Defendant. [ECF 24]
16 17 On February 7, 2024, the parties filed a third joint motion to extend fact discovery, 18 seeking to extend the current February 12, 2024, fact discovery deadline to a date 30 days 19 beyond the district court’s disposition of the pending motion of Plaintiff’s counsel to 20 withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff. (ECF 19, 24.) According to the parties, counsel 21 for Plaintiff is unable to represent Plaintiff at the February 9, 2024, deposition of Plaintiff. 22 (ECF 24 at 4.) The parties seek the extension due to the impending February 12, 2024, fact 23 discovery deadline. (ECF 24 at 4.) The motion is GRANTED IN PART. 24 A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with a judge’s consent. Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 16. The inquiry under the good cause standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 16 primarily focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. See Johnson v. 27 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court may 28 modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 1 || party seeking the extension.’” /d. (quoting Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of 2 || Civil Procedure 16 (1983 amendment) and collecting cases); see Judge Skomal’s Chambers 3 || Rules, Section HI(C) (“The dates and times set in the Scheduling Order will not be modified 4 ||except for good cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Counsel are reminded of their 5 || duty of diligence and that they must ‘take all steps necessary to bring an action to readiness 6 || for trial.” CivLR 16.1(b).”). 7 The Court first extended fact discovery in this case 60 days, to December 29, 2023. 8 ||(ECF 15.) The Court then extended it an additional 45 days, to February 12, 2024, but 9 ||/solely for the purpose of deposing the four witnesses identified in the parties’ motion— 10 || John Sexton, Casey Hensley, Kusum Paul, and Corey Greta. (ECF 22 at 1.) Given that 11 motion to withdraw of Plaintiff's counsel remains pending, that the parties have 12 indicated that Plaintiff's counsel is unable to represent Plaintiff during his deposition, and 13 the 45-day extension of the fact discovery deadline for the purpose of completing the 14 || four identified depositions is about to expire, the Court finds good cause to extend the fact 15 || discovery deadline to a date 30 days beyond the date of the disposition of the pending 16 motion to withdraw. The extension applies only to completing the depositions identified 17 the parties’ prior motion, and indicated in this Court’s prior order, to the extent that they 18 not already been completed. All other scheduling order deadlines remain in effect. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: February 8, 2024 21 GE ab al on. Bernard G. Skomal 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28