Hipschman v. County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 22CV0903-AJB (BLM) 11 CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN; ALEXANDER

HIPSCHMAN, 12 ORDER DENYING IN PART AND Plaintiffs, GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO 13 EXTEND DEADLINE RE RULE 30(b)(6) v. WITNESS AND CONTINUE EXPERT 14 DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND RELATED COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 DATES Defendants. 16 [ECF No. 129]

17 18 19 Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion and Request to Extend Deposition 20 of Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) Witness and Continue Expert Discovery Cutoffs and other related 21 Dates in Scheduling Order. See Mot., ECF No. 129. For the reasons set forth below, the motion 22 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified only 25 “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. 26 P.”) 16(b)(4). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 27 modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the 1 diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Lien v. City of San Diego, 2022 WL 1143548, at 2 *1 (S.D. Cal., March 9, 2022) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). If the moving party fails to 3 demonstrate diligence, “the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. To establish “good 4 cause,” parties seeking modification of a scheduling order must show that even with the exercise 5 of “due diligence,” they still cannot meet an order's timetable. Citizens Development Corporation, 6 Inc. v. County of San Diego, 2019 WL 13166661, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2019) (quoting 7 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 8 DISCUSSION 9 1. Deposition of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) Witness – Categories 10, 13, and 18 10 The parties seek an order continuing the deadline for the County to “re-produce” its Rule 11 30(b)(6) witness relating to categories 10, 13, and 18 in the Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition to 12 December 20, 2024. Mot. at 2. On October 15, 2024, the Court granted the parties motion to 13 extend the deadline to complete the Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition as to 14 categories 10, 13, and 18 to November 6, 2024. ECF No. 117. On November 6, 2024, 15 Defendants produced their Rule 30(b)(6) witness for a deposition relating to categories 10, 13, 16 and 18. Id. The parties met and conferred following the deposition and agreed that the witness 17 needed additional time to prepare for the deposition and therefore, they “agreed to reconvene 18 the deposition at a later time” to allow the witness additional time to review documents and 19 prepare for the deposition. Id. As a result, the parties seek another extension of time to permit 20 the completion of the deposition of the Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness deposition as to 21 categories 10, 13, and 18. For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motion. The 22 deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for categories 10, 13, and 18 must occur on or before 23 December 19, 2024. 24 2. Request to Continue Scheduling Order Dates 25 The parties also seek an order modifying the Scheduling Order by continuing the 26 scheduled deadlines for expert disclosures, supplemental expert disclosures, expert discovery 27 cutoff, and motion filing deadline by approximately forty-five (45) days. Id. In the motion, 1 || materials that are the subject of a separate motion to compel currently before this Court. Id. at 2 Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 125. Plaintiffs also contend that their experts need additional 3 to review the testimony of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for categories 10, 13, and 18 4 || referenced above, as well as the deposition of the Rule 30(b)(6) witness for categories 2, 6, 9, 5 and 16 which the Court previously ruled must take place within ten (10) days of the ruling 6 the pending motion to compel. Mot. at 3; Nov. 22, 2024 Order at 2, ECF No. 127. 7 The Court finds that the parties have not shown good cause to continue all of the 8 remaining dates by approximately forty-five days. Accordingly, all dates remain as previously 9 including expert disclosures on December 6, 2024. See ECF No. 119. If any expert wants 10 ||to supplement or amend his or her expert report based on the testimony provided in the 11 remaining Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, they must do so by January 6, 2025. 12 13 ||Dated: 12/5/2024 Sy , be He ol 14 Hon. Barbara L. Major 15 United States Maqistrate Judde

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28