French v. Mitchell

District Court, S.D. California·Decided July 14, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-01355·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTOPHER G. FRENCH, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01355-MMA-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 J. MITCHELL, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 15 Defendant. TIME TO COMPLETE FACT DISCOVERY, and 16

17 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 18

19 [ECF No. 27]

20 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Fact 21 Discovery. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff seeks to extend the fact discovery deadline by 90 days, 22 which Defendant opposes. Id.; ECF No. 31. 23 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 24 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 25 the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 16 at 5 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates set forth 26 herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); AHG.Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 27 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). 28 1 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 2 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 3 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 4 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 5 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 6 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 7 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 8 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . 9 . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 10 Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original 11 deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 12 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). However, a court also may consider 13 the “existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification[.]” Id. 14 Here, the fact discovery completion deadline is August 1, 2023. ECF No. 16. On 15 June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, requesting a 90-day extension. ECF 16 No. 27. On July 13, 2023, Defendant filed his opposition. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff represents 17 to the Court that she needs more time to conduct fact discovery, including interviewing 18 three more witnesses that “heard everything that happened” during the incident at issue in 19 her complaint “and could be the star witness[.]” ECF No. 27 at 1–2. Plaintiff also needs 20 the extra time to find legal representation. Id. Plaintiff notes, however, even if she is 21 unsuccessful in hiring a pro bono attorney, and although her anxiety is severe and extreme, 22 that she is adamant about litigating her case. Id. at 1; see id. at 3. Defendant argues that 23 Plaintiff has not shown good cause to extend the discovery cutoff. ECF No. 31 at 3–4. 24 Defendant contends that Plaintiff should have interviewed the three additional witnesses 25 earlier in the case, arguing that her delay shows a lack of diligence. Id. at 3. Defendant also 26 concludes, without explanation, that extending the deadline would prejudice Defendant. 27 Id. at 3–4. Thus, Defendant contends that the original fact discovery period is more than 28 sufficient. Id. 1 The Court has reviewed the papers submitted, as well as the docket, and has 2 considered the positions of both sides. The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s 3 arguments. The Court appreciates that Plaintiff, though incarcerated, has been diligently 4 pursuing discovery. See, e.g., ECF No. 31 at 2 (on April 23, 2023, Plaintiff propounded 5 requests for production of document and requests for admissions on Defendant); Id. (on 6 May 23, 2023, Plaintiff deposed an incarcerated witness with a list of pre-prepared 7 questions). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated the diligence necessary 8 for a finding of good cause. The Court also finds that extending the fact discovery deadline 9 in this instance will not prejudice Defendant. Thus, good cause appearing, the Court 10 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for extension. ECF No. 27; see, e.g., Jones v. Pritchard, No. 11 1:19cv396-DAD-HBK, 2021 WL 2954634, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2021) (granting pro 12 se inmate-plaintiff’s request to extend the fact discovery deadline so he could seek 13 discovery from various non-parties); Ayobi v. Showalter, No. 1:17cv693-DAD-SAB-PC, 14 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11743, at *3–*4 (E.D. Cal. Jan 23, 2019) (granting pro se inmate- 15 plaintiff’s request to extend the fact discovery deadline, noting that “the Court is vested 16 with broad discretion to manage discovery and notwithstanding these procedures, Plaintiff 17 is entitled to leniency as a pro se litiga[nt]”). 18 The Court issues the following Amended Scheduling Order: 19 1. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties by November 1, 2023. 20 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 22 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 23 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 24 Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 25 regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to 26 comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 27 order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 28 recognized by the court. The Court expects both sides to make every effort to resolve all 1 disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties 2 reach an impasse on any discovery issue, Defendant must e-mail chambers at 3 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of service of the 4 written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the 5 Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed 6 times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral 7 statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ 8 position. No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion 9 telephonic conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are 10 ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge 11 Allison H. Goddard (attached to this Order for Plaintiff’s convenience). 12 2. The parties must designate their respective experts in writing by 13 December 1, 2023. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to 14 present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement 15 is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts must be by 16 January 5, 2024. The written designations must include the name, address and telephone 17 number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to 18 provide. The list must also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and 19 trial testimony. 20 3. By December 1, 2023, each party must comply with the disclosure provisions 21 in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

French v. Mitchell, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

French v. Mitchell (French v. Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.
624 F.3d 1253 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)