Hastings v. Ford Motor Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 22, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02217
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID HASTINGS, Case No.: 19cv2217-BAS-MDD

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX 12 v. PARTE MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER 13 FORD MOTOR COMPANY and

FORD OF CHULA VISTA, 14 [ECF No. 60] Defendants. 15

16 17 On March 12, 2021, Plaintiff moved, ex parte, to continue all deadlines 18 in the Court’s Scheduling Order by 90 days. (ECF No. 60-1). Defendants 19 filed a declaration of counsel in which they do “not object to the 30(b)(6) 20 deposition, Plaintiff’s deposition . . . , or the vehicle inspection” being 21 continued to a date after April 1, 2021. (ECF No. 68 at 5). 22 District courts have broad discretion to supervise the pre-trial phase of 23 litigation and to “manage the discovery process to facilitate prompt and 24 efficient resolution of the lawsuit.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 599 25 (1988). Scheduling orders are issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 16(b) to limit the time to join parties, amend the pleadings, 1 place, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 2 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 3 The “good cause” requirement of Rule 16 primarily considers the 4 diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth 5 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A party demonstrates 6 good cause for the modification of a scheduling order by showing that, even 7 with the exercise of due diligence, he or she was unable to meet the deadlines 8 set forth in the order. See Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 32 F.3d 1080, 9 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002). Under Ninth Circuit precedent, “a client is 10 ordinarily chargeable with his [prior] counsel’s negligent acts.” Community 11 Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 In support of his motion, Plaintiff contends good cause exists because 13 counsel “inadvertently missed” various deadlines and because Plaintiff has 14 “generally been diligent in discovery.” (ECF No. 60-1 at 3, 6). Plaintiff 15 explains that “the attorney at Plaintiff’s counsel firm . . . who had been 16 responsible for tracking and calendaring the deadlines in this matter, left the 17 firm but neglected to advise [the firm] that the expert deadlines were coming 18 due and/or had been missed.” (Id. at 4). Moreover, “the attorney who had 19 been assuming some of [former counsel’s] duties as to fact discovery . . . did 20 not realize that the expert deadlines had been missed as well.” (Id.). 21 Counsel’s negligence in case management is not good cause to amend the 22 scheduling order. Nevertheless, Defendants do not object to extending the 23 discovery deadline beyond April 1, 2021 for the sole purpose of taking a 24 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant’s corporate representative, Plaintiff’s 25 deposition, and the vehicle inspection. (ECF No. 68 at 5). 26 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion 1 purpose of taking a 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant’s corporate 9 ||representative, Plaintiff's deposition, and the vehicle inspection. All other 3 ||dates and guidelines remain as previously set. (See ECF No. 49). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 22, 2021 + uk | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27