Goldstein v. General Motors LLC
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MATT GOLDSTEIN, et al., individually, Case No.: 3:19-cv-01778-RSH-AHG and on behalf of a class of similarly 11 ORDER GRANTING JOINT situated individuals, MOTION TO AMEND 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER 13 v. [ECF No. 100] 14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. ECF No. 18 100. The parties jointly request that the Court extend the two remaining deadlines set forth 19 in the May 4, 2022 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 94) by six months each. 20 Under Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 21 and with the judge’s consent.” “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been 22 construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 23 Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence 24 of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 25 modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 26 “[T]he court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably 27 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory 28 committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by 1 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 2 Transportation Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. 3 Sept. 19, 2018). 4 Here, the parties explain that they have “diligently pursued discovery on multiple 5 fronts and repeatedly engaged in meet and confer efforts to resolve discovery disputes,” 6 including agreeing to a stipulated Protective Order and stipulated ESI Protocol, agreeing 7 that Plaintiffs would supplement certain discovery responses, and agreeing upon search 8 terms for Defendant’s document collection and production in June. ECF No. 100 at 2. The 9 parties report they have propounded and responded to written discovery and are in the 10 process of producing and reviewing documents, and that Defendant has produced over 11 192,000 pages of documents to date and continues to produce responsive documents on a 12 rolling basis. Id. at 2-3. Based on the volume of documents to be reviewed, Defendant 13 anticipates it will need at least 60-90 days to complete its production, produce a privilege 14 log, and supplement its written discovery responses, and Plaintiffs require additional time 15 to review Defendant’s documents and prepare their motion for class certification thereafter. 16 Id. at 3. Plaintiffs also require additional time to complete their supplemental discovery 17 responses, and Defendant needs time to review Plaintiffs’ productions once complete and 18 to issue third-party discovery. Id. 19 The Court finds the parties have shown good cause to GRANT the requested 20 extension of the case schedule. Accordingly, the Scheduling Order is hereby AMENDED 21 as follows: 22 1. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be 23 completed by March 2, 2023. “Completed” means that all discovery requests governed by 24 Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 25 45, must be propounded sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date so that they 26 may be completed by that date, taking into account the time permitted in the Rules for 27 service, notice, and responses. If any discovery disputes arise, counsel must meet and 28 confer promptly and in good faith in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to 1 comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 2 order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 3 recognized by the Court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all 4 disputes without court intervention through the meet-and-confer process. If the parties 5 reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must email chambers at 6 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of service of the 7 written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the 8 Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed 9 times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral 10 statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ 11 position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may 12 be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the 13 movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply 14 with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, which can be found 15 on the district court website and at: 16 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Civil%20Pretrial%20Pr 17 ocedures.pdf. 18 2. Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification by April 3, 2023.1 The 19 parties should review Judge Huie’s Chambers Rules for Civil Cases for the additional 20 requirements for noticed motions before Judge Huie. 21 3. Within three (3) business days of a ruling on the motion for class 22 certification, the parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at 23 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to arrange a further Case Management Conference 24 (“CMC”). The parties are not required a submit a proposed schedule by this deadline. The 25 Court will set a deadline for the parties to submit a proposed case schedule in the order 26 27 1 Should Plaintiffs not file a class certification motion, they must notify the Court via 28 | setting a further CMC. 2 4. The dates set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: August 9, 2022 . 5 _ Doom. Xone Honorable Allison H. Goddard 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Goldstein v. General Motors LLC (Goldstein v. General Motors LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.