Doe v. Steele

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JANE DOE, Case No.: 20cv1818-MMA (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER 14 CISSY STEELE. et al., [ECF NO. 112] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On May 20, 2022, the parties filed a “Joint Motion Requesting Amended 19 Scheduling Order.” (ECF No. 112.) In support, the parties explain that at a telephonic 20 Case Management Conference on April 21, 2022, they expressed a shared interest in 21 holding a settlement conference and continuing the fact discovery deadline. (Id. at 2.) 22 Thereafter, based on the parties’ agreement and joint request, the Court set a settlement 23 conference on June 10, 2022, and continued the fact discovery cutoff to August 5, 2022. 24 (ECF No. 111.) The parties now “request . . . to continue specific dates set forth in the 25 First Amended Scheduling Order” concerning expert discovery and the dispositive 26 motion deadline. (ECF No. 112 at 2.) 27 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 28 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This good cause standard “primarily considers the 1 diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial 2 schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 3 extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) and collecting 5 cases). “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 6 On April 21, 2022, when the parties first expressed interest in a settlement 7 conference and stay of discovery, the fact discovery cut-off was April 29, 2022, the 8 expert designation and disclosure deadline was May 20, 2022, and the expert discovery 9 cut-off was July 1, 2022. (See ECF No. 99 at 3; ECF No. 81 at 3.) Though the Court 10 was willing to permit the parties to continue the fact discovery deadline at their choosing, 11 the Court does not find that the parties have demonstrated the diligence necessary to 12 continue all remaining dates in the scheduling order at this time. Based on the 13 information before the Court, there is good cause to continue the scheduling dates in such 14 a manner that will place the parties in a similar position after the settlement conference 15 on June 10 as that they were in on April 21. For example, because the parties had 16 twenty-nine days remaining before their deadline to designate experts and disclose their 17 reports when they approached the Court about requesting an early settlement conference 18 (the difference between April 21 and May 20, 2022), the Court finds good cause to 19 continue the expert designation and disclosure deadline to July 11, 2022 (the first court 20 day after July 9, which is twenty-nine days after June 10). 21 For the reasons described above, the joint motion is GRANTED in part and 22 DENIED in part as follows: 23 1. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties by August 5, 2022. 24 2. The parties must designate their respective experts in writing by 25 July 11, 2022. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts must be by July 25, 2022. 26 3. By July 11, 2022, each party must comply with the disclosure provisions in 27 Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 4. Any party must supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 1 || evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by July 25, 2022. 2 5. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties by August 25, 2022. 3 || The parties must comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing 4 || fact discovery. 5 6. All dispositive pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment 6 ||and motions addressing Daubert issues, must be filed by September 23, 2022.! 7 Unless specifically changed by this order, all previous orders remain in place. 9 || Dated: May 20, 2022 _ a 0 a CA Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 □□ 28 This deadline is not applicable to pretrial motions in limine. For further information regarding motions in limine, please refer to Judge Anello’s Civil Chambers Rules.