Hucker v. Daub

District Court, S.D. California·Decided July 21, 2022·No. 3:21-cv-00577·Unknown

Opinion

JASON HUCKER, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00577-RSH-AHG

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ CHRISTOPHER DAUB, et al., EX PARTE APPLICATION TO Defendants. MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER, and

(2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF No. 34] Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Modify the Scheduling Order. ECF No. 34. Defendants seek to continue the fact discovery cutoff by approximately 75 days, to September 13, 2022, regarding specific discovery requests. Id. Defendants also seek to continue all other remaining case management deadlines, except the August 1 expert discovery cutoff. Id. Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 26 at ¶ 18 (operative scheduling order, stating that “[t]he dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). A “party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). The deadline to complete fact discovery in this matter was May 2, 2022. ECF No. 26 at ¶ 2. In light of routine problems with the mailroom at RJD, the Court extended the deadline to June 30, 2022, for Defendant to re-serve, and for Plaintiff to respond to, Defendant Sharp’s discovery requests. ECF No. 32 at 2. In the instant motion, Defendants represent to the Court that, due to inmate movement being restricted as part of new COVID-19 safety protocols, Plaintiff has not been able to access the law library or respond to Defendant Sharp’s interrogatories or requests for production. ECF No. 34-1 at ¶¶ 2–4; ECF No. 34 at 2. Thus, Defendants seek to “extend the fact-discovery deadline by seventy- five days, to September 13, 2022, for the limited purpose of Plaintiff responding to Defendant Sharp’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Moreover, because Plaintiff’s discovery responses will be due less than a month before the October 7, 2022 pretrial-motion filing deadline, [Defendants also seek] to extend all remaining deadlines in the scheduling order (except for the deadline to complete expert discovery) by seventy-five days to allow Defendants sufficient time to review the discovery before filing a summary-judgment motion.” ECF No. 34 at 3; ECF No. 34-1 at ¶¶ 4–5. Upon consideration of the papers submitted, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion as follows: 1. May 2, 2022 remains the deadline for completion of fact discovery, except for the following: a. The deadline is extended to September 30, 2022 for the limited purpose of Plaintiff responding to Defendant Sharp’s Interrogatories and Requests For Production, which were originally attempted to be served on March 30, 2022 and re-served on May 27, 2022. 1. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by August 1, 2022. The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact discovery. 2. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 3. All other pretrial motions must be filed by November 18, 2022. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion (e.g., for a Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel would obtain a hearing date from Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard’s law clerk, since Judge Goddard would be issuing the Report and Recommendation on the motion). The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the district judge. 4. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on February 8, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. a. Defendant’s counsel must provide Plaintiff with her mailing address by December 28, 2022. Plaintiff must serve on Defendant a written settlement proposal, to the mailing address provided, which must include a specific demand amount, no later than January 10, 2023. Defendant must respond to Plaintiff in writing with a specific offer amount by January 20, 2023. The parties should not file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties must include their written settlement proposals in their respective Settlement Conference Statements to the Court. The Court waives its meet and confer requirement for this b. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than February 1, 2023. Defendant’s Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Plaintiff’s Statement may be mailed to: Chambers of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard 221 West Broadway, Suite 3142 San Diego, California 92101 The substance of the Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with the Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located at located at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Manda tory%20Settlement%20Conference%20Rules.pdf and attached to this Order for Plaintiff’s convenience). Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than February 1, 2023. Defendant’s Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Plaintiff may mail his Letter to the address provided above. Should a party choose to prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must comply fully with the Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located at the link above and attached to this Order for Plaintiff’s convenience). c. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard (attached hereto), except as explicitly modified by this order. 5. Both parties shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law and take any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) by July 6, 2023. 6. Both parties shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by July 6, 2023. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P.

Hucker v. Daub, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Hucker v. Daub (Hucker v. Daub) — 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)