Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno

Opinion

Benjamin K. Mason (State Bar No. 289066) Angelica J. Simpson (State Bar No. 325210) MORLEY MASON, PLC 2600 W. Geronimo Pl., Ste. 100 Chandler, AZ 85224 Telephone: 480.320.1254 Facsimile: 480.505.0926 ben@morleymason.com angelica@morleymason.com Attorneys for Amazing Insurance, Inc. and Third-Party Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMAZING INSURANCE, INC, a Georgia Case No. 2:19-cv-01349-TLN-CKD corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY MICHAEL A. DiMANNO, an individual, DISCOVERY DEADLINES; and ACCUIRE, LLC, a Florida limited ORDER liability company, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. __________________________________ MICHAEL A. DiMANNO, an individual, and ACCUIRE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. VIKASH JAIN, an individual, GERALD DOUGLAS ANDERTON, an individual, KARA CHILDRESS, an individual, and ALEX CAMPOS, an individual, Third-Party Defendants. Plaintiff Amazing Insurance, Inc. and Third-Party Defendants (collectively, in this document, “Plaintiff”) file the following Consent Motion to Modify Discovery Deadlines: The parties’ efforts to complete discovery in this case have becom e much more fruitful over the last several weeks and require only a short extension of the current deadlines in order to be completed. Defendants consent to the relief sought herein. The Court entered an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order on July 18, 2019 (the “Pretrial Order”). ECF No. 3. The Pretrial Order set a number of discovery deadlines, keyed off trial dates and Answer dates. Id. On January 31, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Status Report providing for different discovery deadlines. ECF No. 33. The Court did not adopt or agree to these deadlines; therefore, the governing deadlines were those from the Pretrial Order. The Court then issued ECF No. 43 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On December 30, 2020, in response to a Joint Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery, the Court issued ECF No. 78, which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On March 1, 2021, the parties consented to a further extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court then issued ECF No. 81. On March 31, 2021, the court issued ECF No. 83 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On May 10, 2021, the court issued ECF No. 85 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On June 25, 2021, the parties consented to a further extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issued ECF No. 89, which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. This Court has broad discretion to amend to govern the pretrial phase of litigation before it, “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order . . . will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). As stated by the Court itself, and by case law, the Court can modify its pretrial order on a showing of good cause, “A pretrial order controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified `upon a showing of good cause.'“ Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1135 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing ElHakem v. BJY Inc.,415 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir.2005); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)), petition for cert. filed, 74 U.S.L.W. 3407 (U.S. Oct. 19, 2005) (No. 05-84); see also Arsement v. Spinnaker Expl oration Co.,400 F.3d 238, 245 (5th Cir.2005) (“It goes without saying that a pre-trial order controls the scope and course of trial.. . .”). The parties have exchanged discovery responses, and further supplemental responses are expected. Some of the expected nine (or more) contemplated depositions have been completed, and the parties are actively communicating through counsel and working to accommodate the taking of said depositions. Based on this, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants, and Defendants, through counsel, have agreed that the parties would request an extension of deadlines. Plaintiff therefore respectfully asks the Court to modify the discovery deadlines as follows: Deadline ECF No. 89 New Deadline Requested by Parties Discovery September 15, 2021 November 15, 2021 Initial Expert Disclosures November 15, 2021 January 14, 2022 Supplemental Expert December 15, 2021 February 14, 2022 Disclosures Dispositive Motions February 1, 2022 April 1, 2022 CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court grant the relief detailed above, as to which all parties consent. DATED this 26th day of August, 2021. By: /s/ Angelica Simpson Angelica Simpson MORLEY MASON, PLC Attorneys for Amazing Insurance, Inc. and All Third-Party Defendants I certify that, on August 26, 2021, I spoke with John Shoreman, counsel for Defendants, and they do not oppose the relief sought. Mr. Shoreman confirmed his approval of this filing via email on August 26, 2021. By:__/s/ Angelica Simpson A ngelica Simpson / IT IS SO ORDERED. \ } jf } Aw IM Dated: August 27, 2021 —ZNS ZN Troy L. Nunley } United States District Judge