Frias v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 12, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00675
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || JOSEPH FRIAS, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00675-JO-AHG 12 Plants) ORDER RESOLVING OPPOSED 13 |] V. JOINT MOTION AND GRANTING county oF SANDIEGO, cat, | PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO 15 Defendants.| FILE A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 16 AMEND 17 [ECF No. 34] 18 Before the Court is the parties’ opposed joint motion to continue the deadline for 19 filing a motion for leave to amend. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff seeks to extend the deadline from 20 May 15, 2023, to June 5, 2023, which Defendant opposes. /d. 1 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 22 cause. FED. R. CIv. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 23 the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 25 at 5 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates set forth 24 herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); AHG.Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 25 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request’). 26 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 27 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 28

| || Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 2 || “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 3 statutory contexts. Ahanchian vy. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 4 ||2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 5 ||scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 6 || (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . 7 ||. . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 8 || Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original 9 || deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 10 }}2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). However, a court also may consider 11 “existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification[.]” Jd. 12 Here, any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 13 pleadings, is due on May 15, 2023. ECF No. 25 at 1. On May 12, 2023, the parties filed 14 |/the instant motion, with Plaintiff requesting a three-week extension of this deadline and 15 || Defendant requesting no more than a two-week extension. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff represents 16 || to the Court that he has been diligently attempting to ascertain the identities of the unnamed 17 ||“Doe” Defendants—1.e., “the deputies involved in the use of force that is the subject of 18 || Plaintiff's complaint.” /d. at 2. Plaintiff represents that his counsel is in the process of 19 reviewing 7,000 pages of documents and 17 videos recently produced by Defendant in 20 || discovery. /d. Plaintiff requests a three-week continuance, instead of the two-week 21 continuance agreed to by Defendant, because Plaintiff’s counsel will be out of town from 22 ||May 18 to May 23 for Plaintiff's deposition. /d. at 3. Defendant represents that it “does not 23 || oppose a brief continuance, no more than two weeks.” /d. at 4. Defendant represents that 24 5,000 pages of the 7,000-page production are medical records that would not assist Plaintiff 25 identifying Doe defendants. /d. at 4-5. Defendant further contends that the 17 videos 26 || would also not assist Plaintiff in identifying Doe defendants. /d. Defendant represents that 27 || there are 100 pages of law enforcement reports, with the names of the officers who prepared 28

1 report, that would be relevant to identifying the unnamed deputies. /d. Thus, 2 || Defendant contends that a two-week extension is more than sufficient. Jd. 3 The Court has reviewed the papers submitted, as well as the docket, and has 4 ||considered the arguments of both sides. The Court appreciates that Plaintiff has been 5 || diligently pursuing discovery and reviewing the voluminous discovery responses. Thus, 6 || the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated the diligence necessary for a finding of good 7 || cause. The Court finds that a one-week extension beyond what Defendant was willing to 8 stipulate to will not prejudice Defendant, as the fact discovery deadline is in August. Thus, 9 despite the joint motion’s shortcomings,’ good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS 10 || Plaintiff's motion for extension. ECF No. 34. The Court ORDERS as follows: 1] 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 12 || pleadings shall be filed by June 5, 2023. 13 2. To the extent that Plaintiff intends to use the instant motion to notify the Court 14 || of a discovery dispute regarding Special Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 3, the Court requires that 15 || the parties follow the Court’s Chambers Rules. See AHG.Chmb.R. at 3-4. 16 3. All other deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25) 17 ||/remain in place, except as explicitly modified by this Order. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: May 12, 2023 ihioevH. Notolarde Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 36 ' Compare AHG.Chmb.R. at 3 (requiring that all motions for continuances be filed “seven calendar days before the affected date”) with ECF No. 34 (filed three days before Plaintiff s 27 motion for leave to amend was due). Compare AHG.Chmb.R. at 3 (requiring that all joint 58 motions for continuances include a declaration from counsel) with ECF No. 34 (no declaration).