Hucker v. Daub

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

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON HUCKER, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00577-RSH-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 CHRISTOPHER DAUB, et al., EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 15 Defendants. MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER, and 16

17 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 18

19 [ECF No. 34] 20 21 Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Modify the Scheduling 22 Order. ECF No. 34. Defendants seek to continue the fact discovery cutoff by approximately 23 75 days, to September 13, 2022, regarding specific discovery requests. Id. Defendants also 24 seek to continue all other remaining case management deadlines, except the August 1 25 expert discovery cutoff. Id. 26 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause. FED. 27 R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 28 consent”); ECF No. 26 at ¶ 18 (operative scheduling order, stating that “[t]he dates and 1 times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 3 request”). 4 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 5 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 6 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 7 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 8 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 9 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 10 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). A “party demonstrates good cause by 11 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 12 Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 13 2018). 14 The deadline to complete fact discovery in this matter was May 2, 2022. ECF No. 26 15 at ¶ 2. In light of routine problems with the mailroom at RJD, the Court extended the 16 deadline to June 30, 2022, for Defendant to re-serve, and for Plaintiff to respond to, 17 Defendant Sharp’s discovery requests. ECF No. 32 at 2. In the instant motion, Defendants 18 represent to the Court that, due to inmate movement being restricted as part of new 19 COVID-19 safety protocols, Plaintiff has not been able to access the law library or respond 20 to Defendant Sharp’s interrogatories or requests for production. ECF No. 34-1 at ¶¶ 2–4; 21 ECF No. 34 at 2. Thus, Defendants seek to “extend the fact-discovery deadline by seventy- 22 five days, to September 13, 2022, for the limited purpose of Plaintiff responding to 23 Defendant Sharp’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Moreover, 24 because Plaintiff’s discovery responses will be due less than a month before the 25 October 7, 2022 pretrial-motion filing deadline, [Defendants also seek] to extend all 26 remaining deadlines in the scheduling order (except for the deadline to complete expert 27 discovery) by seventy-five days to allow Defendants sufficient time to review the discovery 28 before filing a summary-judgment motion.” ECF No. 34 at 3; ECF No. 34-1 at ¶¶ 4–5. 1 Upon consideration of the papers submitted, and good cause appearing, the Court 2 GRANTS the motion as follows: 3 1. May 2, 2022 remains the deadline for completion of fact discovery, except 4 for the following: 5 a. The deadline is extended to September 30, 2022 for the limited 6 purpose of Plaintiff responding to Defendant Sharp’s Interrogatories 7 and Requests For Production, which were originally attempted to be 8 served on March 30, 2022 and re-served on May 27, 2022. 9 1. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by August 1, 2022. The 10 parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 11 discovery. 12 2. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 13 may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 14 the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 15 3. All other pretrial motions must be filed by November 18, 2022. Counsel for 16 the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who 17 will hear the motion (e.g., for a Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel would obtain a 18 hearing date from Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard’s law clerk, since Judge Goddard 19 would be issuing the Report and Recommendation on the motion). The period of time 20 between the date you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary from one judge 21 to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may 22 result in the motion not being heard. Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the 23 Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the district judge. 24 4. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on February 8, 2023 25 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 26 a. Defendant’s counsel must provide Plaintiff with her mailing address by 27 December 28, 2022. Plaintiff must serve on Defendant a written 28 settlement proposal, to the mailing address provided, which must include 1 a specific demand amount, no later than January 10, 2023. Defendant 2 must respond to Plaintiff in writing with a specific offer amount by 3 January 20, 2023. The parties should not file or otherwise copy the Court 4 on these exchanges. Rather, the parties must include their written 5 settlement proposals in their respective Settlement Conference Statements 6 to the Court. The Court waives its meet and confer requirement for this 7 MSC. 8 b. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will 9 be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than 10 February 1, 2023. Defendant’s Statement must be lodged in .pdf format 11 via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Plaintiff’s 12 Statement may be mailed to: 13 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard 221 West Broadway, Suite 3142 14 San Diego, California 92101 15 The substance of the Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully 16 with the Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules 17 (located at located at 18 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Manda 19 tory%20Settlement%20Conference%20Rules.pdf and attached to this 20 Order for Plaintiff’s convenience). Each party may also prepare an 21 optional Confidential Settlement Letter for the Court’s review only, to be 22 lodged with the Court no later than February 1, 2023. Defendant’s Letter 23 must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 24 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Plaintiff may mail his Letter 25 to the address provided above. Should a party choose to prepare a Letter, 26 the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must comply fully with 27 the Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located at 28 1 the link above and attached to this Order for Plaintiff’s convenience). 2 c. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers 3 Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate 4 Judge Allison H. Goddard (attached hereto), except as explicitly 5 modified by this order. 6 5. Both parties shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law and 7 take any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) by July 6, 2023. 8 6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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)