Reel v. Johnson
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Lupe Rodriguez (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to amend the scheduling order to extend specific discovery deadlines for depositions and supplemental responses. The court granted the motion, extending the deadline for the specified events to May 31, 2024, while leaving the general fact discovery deadline unchanged.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order granted“The Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion (ECF No. 67) and extends the deadline by which the depositions and outstanding discovery responses outlined above may be completed to May 31, 2024.” | agree with court The court applied the correct standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.) requiring 'good cause' and diligence. The order recites that the parties engaged in informal discovery conferences and identified specific pending depositions and discovery responses, which constitutes a reasonable showing of good cause for a limited extension. The court appropriately limited the scope of the extension to the specific items requested, preserving the integrity of the overall schedule. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for modifying a scheduling order and applies it to the facts presented. It cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent and the relevant Federal Rule. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a joint motion where the parties have already negotiated the terms and demonstrated diligence through prior conferences. There are no significant gaps or errors in the application of the law.
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 JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 14 CITY OF EL CENTRO, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 66 & 67] 16 17 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 request that the Court 21 amend the current scheduling order to allow several outstanding depositions and select 22 supplemental discovery responses to be completed after the current fact discovery 23 deadline of April 12, 2024. (ECF Nos. 66 & 67.) 24 To demonstrate good cause to continue these events, counsel explain that after 25 several informal discovery conferences (“IDCs”) before the undersigned regarding the 26 depositions of: (1) Defendant Brian Johnson, (2) Officers Robert Sawyer, James 27 Thompson, and John Seaman, as well as (3) El Centro City Attorney Betsy Martyn, the 28 parties will need additional time to complete these depositions and supplement certain 1 || discovery requests related to these individuals. (ECF No. 67 at 2-3.) The joint motion 2 || only seeks to extend the deadline by which these events will be completed—trather than 3 || extending the fact discovery cutoff in its entirety. (See id.) 4 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 5 ||consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the 6 || diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial 7 schedule ‘if 1t cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 8 ||extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 9 || (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes and collecting cases). “If that party 10 || was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 11 The Court concludes that good cause exists to extend the deadlines as they are 12 || outlined in the parties’ request. As such, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion 13 || ECF No. 67) and extends the deadline by which the depositions and outstanding 14 || discovery responses outlined above may be completed to May 31, 2024. The Court 15 || reiterates that this extension applies only to the events outlined in the parties’ joint 16 ||motion—not the fact discovery deadline in general. All other deadlines and requirements 17 || from the scheduling order (ECF No. 38) remain unchanged. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 9, 2024 20 21 / L 22 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 33 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28