ESTATE OF WILLIAM HAYDEN Case No.: 3:23-cv-00785-DMS-AHG SCHUCK, et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiffs, JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [ECF Nos. 54, 56] Defendants. Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to modify the scheduling order. ECF No. 56; see also ECF No. 54. The parties seek an order from the Court extending the expert discovery deadline and pretrial motion filing deadline by approximately three months. Id. Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 47 at 5 (Amended Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they need more time to conduct discovery. ECF No. 56 at 2. Specifically, the parties explain that they need to “review voluminous discovery and adequately prepare for numerous depositions.” Id.; ECF No. 56-1 at 4 (case file contains “days’ worth of video recordings and audio interview recordings” and the “parties are in the process of coordinating ten depositions”). The parties later provided more detailed reasons for their extension request, which showed their diligence by listing when discovery requests have been served and responded to, and more thoroughly explained the scheduling conflicts alluded to in the joint motion. Email to Chambers (Mar. 4, 2024, at 12:35 PM). As such, the parties request a three-month extension of the scheduling order deadlines. ECF No. 56 at 2; Email to Chambers (Mar. 4, 2024, at 12:35 PM) (requesting additional deadlines be extended). Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings,1 the Court appreciates that the parties are working together and concludes that the parties have demonstrated diligence. Upon due 1 The Court notes that the parties’ original motion (ECF No. 54) was a stipulation of dates and contained no explanation. As such, court staff reminded the parties of the Court’s Chambers Rules and the parties filed their amended joint motion (ECF No. 56). However, the amended motion—while better than the first—did not contain sufficient detail to support such a large, three-month extension. The parties then emailed court staff additional information. consideration, the Court finds good cause to GRANT IN PART the motion. The Court issues the following First Amended Scheduling Order: 1. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties by July 11, 2024. “Completed” means that all discovery requests governed by Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be propounded sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date so that they may be completed by that date, taking into account the time permitted in the Rules for service, notice, and responses. If any discovery disputes arise, counsel must meet and confer promptly and in good faith in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the Court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet-and-confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must email chambers at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of service of the written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, which can be found on the district court website 2 In their motion, the parties state that they “do not anticipate that the request for an extension on the dates list above will affect the remaining dates in the scheduling order.” ECF No. 56 at 3. However, the dates requested by the parties do impact the remaining dates and at: https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Civil%20Pretrial%20Pr ocedures.pdf. 2. The parties must designate their respective experts in writing by August 15, 2024. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts must be by September 19, 2024. The written designations must include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list must also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 3. By October 17, 2024, each party must comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to make these disclosures will not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 4. Any party must supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by November 21, 2024. 5. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties by December 19, 2024. The parties must comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ESTATE OF WILLIAM HAYDEN Case No.: 3:23-cv-00785-DMS-AHG SCHUCK, et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiffs, JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [ECF Nos. 54, 56] Defendants. Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to modify the scheduling order. ECF No. 56; see also ECF No. 54. The parties seek an order from the Court extending the expert discovery deadline and pretrial motion filing deadline by approximately three months. Id. Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 47 at 5 (Amended Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they need more time to conduct discovery. ECF No. 56 at 2. Specifically, the parties explain that they need to “review voluminous discovery and adequately prepare for numerous depositions.” Id.; ECF No. 56-1 at 4 (case file contains “days’ worth of video recordings and audio interview recordings” and the “parties are in the process of coordinating ten depositions”). The parties later provided more detailed reasons for their extension request, which showed their diligence by listing when discovery requests have been served and responded to, and more thoroughly explained the scheduling conflicts alluded to in the joint motion. Email to Chambers (Mar. 4, 2024, at 12:35 PM). As such, the parties request a three-month extension of the scheduling order deadlines. ECF No. 56 at 2; Email to Chambers (Mar. 4, 2024, at 12:35 PM) (requesting additional deadlines be extended). Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings,1 the Court appreciates that the parties are working together and concludes that the parties have demonstrated diligence. Upon due 1 The Court notes that the parties’ original motion (ECF No. 54) was a stipulation of dates and contained no explanation. As such, court staff reminded the parties of the Court’s Chambers Rules and the parties filed their amended joint motion (ECF No. 56). However, the amended motion—while better than the first—did not contain sufficient detail to support such a large, three-month extension. The parties then emailed court staff additional information. consideration, the Court finds good cause to GRANT IN PART the motion. The Court issues the following First Amended Scheduling Order: 1. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties by July 11, 2024. “Completed” means that all discovery requests governed by Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be propounded sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date so that they may be completed by that date, taking into account the time permitted in the Rules for service, notice, and responses. If any discovery disputes arise, counsel must meet and confer promptly and in good faith in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the Court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet-and-confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must email chambers at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of service of the written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, which can be found on the district court website 2 In their motion, the parties state that they “do not anticipate that the request for an extension on the dates list above will affect the remaining dates in the scheduling order.” ECF No. 56 at 3. However, the dates requested by the parties do impact the remaining dates and at: https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Civil%20Pretrial%20Pr ocedures.pdf. 2. The parties must designate their respective experts in writing by August 15, 2024. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts must be by September 19, 2024. The written designations must include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list must also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 3. By October 17, 2024, each party must comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to make these disclosures will not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 4. Any party must supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by November 21, 2024. 5. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties by December 19, 2024. The parties must comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 6. All other pretrial motions must be filed by January 21, 2025. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the district judge. 7. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on March 26, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. Plaintiff must serve on Defendant a written settlement proposal, which must include a specific demand amount, no later than March 5, 2025. The defendant must respond to the plaintiff in writing with a specific offer amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties should not file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties must include their written settlement proposals in their respective Settlement Conference Statements to the Court. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person or by phone no later than March 12, 2025. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than March 19, 2025. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of the Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Mandatory%20Settlem ent%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than March 19, 2025. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a party choose to prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 8. Counsel shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law and take any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) by May 30, 2025. 9. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by May 30, 2025. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 10. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by June 6, 2025. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference order. 11. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By June 13, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with plaintiff’s attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 12. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and lodged with the assigned district judge by June 20, 2025, and shall be in the form prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 13. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw on June 27, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. The trial is scheduled to start on August 4, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. 14. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge and magistrate judge. 15. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held within 30 days of verdict in the case. 16. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown. 17. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents and a table of authorities cited. Dated: March 8, 2024 [Wow H. Kolar B Honorable Allison i. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge