Burgess v. County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW BURGESS, Case No.: 21cv616-MMA (MSB) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER: (1) DENYING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., SCHEDULING ORDER [ECF NO. 39], 15 Defendants. (2) SETTING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AND 16 (3) CONTINUING EXPERT DESIGNATION 17 DEADLINES

18 19 20 On October 6, 2022, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling 21 Order,” asking the Court to continue their expert designation deadlines by 22 approximately 60 days, their expert disclosures deadlines by approximately 30 days, and 23 their expert discovery cut-off date by just over three weeks. (ECF No. 39.) In support, 24 the parties cite a stipulated two-week extension of Defendants’ deadline to respond to 25 Plaintiff’s written discovery served on September 23, 2022, and the fact that the parties 26 “have been unable to conduct key depositions of Plaintiff and Defendant Officer Huff.” 27 (Id. at 3.) 28 / / / 1 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 2 ||consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the 3 || diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the 4 || pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 5 ||seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 6 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) and 7 || collecting cases). “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 8 The Court does not find good cause for the requested amendments to the 9 || scheduling order and therefore DENIES the joint motion without prejudice. However, to 10 || ensure the parties aren’t prejudiced by the Court’s denial of this order, the Court 11 || CONTINUES certain dates as follows: The expert designation deadline previously set for 12 || October 7, 2022, is CONTINUED to November 21, 2022. The rebuttal expert designation 13 || deadline is CONTINUED from October 21, 2022, to December 5, 2022. 14 The Court SETS a telephonic Case Management Conference on October 12, 2022, 15 |] at 12:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED to arrange the joint call to chambers at 16 ||(619) 557-6632. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: October 7, 2022 - = 19 a” BAL Honorable Michael S. Berg 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28