Jihan, Inc. v. Amco Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 25, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00097
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIHAN, INC., et al., Case No.: 20-CV-97-LAB-WVG

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 13 v. CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND 14 AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATED CASE MANAGEMENT 15 Defendant. DEADLINES 16 17 18 19 On February 6, 2020, this Court issued an order setting an Early Neutral Evaluation 20 Conference (“ENE”) in this matter to April 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. and a telephonic Pre- 21 ENE Conference to March 31, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (Doc. No. 6., “the ENE Order”). On 22 March 22, 2020, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Early Neutral Evaluation 23 Conference and Related Case Management Deadlines. (Doc. No. 7.) In doing so, the Parties 24 move the Court to continue the ENE, the telephonic Pre-ENE Conference, the deadline to 25 exchange and lodge ENE statements, and the deadline to lodge the Parties’ joint discovery 26 plan. The basis for the Parties’ request to vacate and reset nearly all deadlines encompassed 27 in the Court’s February 6, 2020 Scheduling Order is the “COVID-19 pandemic situation.” 28 (Id.) For the reasons below, the Court DENIES without prejudice the Parties’ request and 1 ORDERS all participants in the March 31, 2020 Pre-ENE Conference and the April 13, 2 2020 ENE to appear telephonically, rather than in person. 3 Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a movant to establish 4 good cause upon seeking modification of the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). This 5 good cause standard is primarily informed by the movant’s diligence in attempting to fully 6 comply with the deadlines set by the Court. Matrix Motor Co. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki 7 Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 671 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Failure to make the requisite showing 8 terminates the Court’s inquiry into whether it is appropriate to grant the movant’s requested 9 relief from the operative scheduling order. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 10 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 The Court is certainly mindful of the disruption the current COVID-19 pandemic 12 has had on society at large and the efficient administration of justice. In that vein, the Court 13 acknowledges the value of conducting the ENE in person; indeed, it is the most optimal 14 means through which the Court may facilitate salient and sensitive settlement discussions 15 with all parties, in joint and private settings. However, there is a reasonable and safe 16 alternative to conducting the ENE in person during these uncertain times which the Parties 17 have failed to acknowledge when making their request for such a long continuance. The 18 Parties have not addressed why they would be unable to participate telephonically in the 19 Pre-ENE Conference and the ENE itself. The only travel involved would be finding a quiet 20 room in which to conduct a telephone call. At present, the COVID-19 pandemic’s 21 expiration date and whether the Chief Judge will lift the ongoing suspension of personal 22 appearances are matters of uncertainty. The Parties’ Joint Motion provides the Court no 23 sound reason to stall the April 13, 2020 ENE and related dates by at least three months and 24 make them contingent on either of those uncertainties. 25 “Company directives requiring employees to work remotely” certainly falls in line 26 with the Court’s modified procedures as reflected in this Order. Moreover, vague 27 references to “unforeseen disruptions to normal business operations” are insufficient to 28 meet Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard as applicable here. (Doc. No. 7, 2: 14-18.) While 1 accepting that the Parties have timely exchanged initial disclosures and settlement 2 proposals, the Court strains to find what specific efforts the Parties have made to meet the 3 deadlines to lodge ENE statements and a joint discovery plan and to prepare for the 4 telephonic Pre-ENE conference. These efforts largely require counsel and their clients to 5 electronically exchange and review documents and hold internal discussions regarding the 6 relevant facts, witnesses, documents, claims, defenses, and the client’s settlement position. 7 From there, it falls on counsel for the Parties to meet and confer and exchange the relevant 8 ENE statements and forge a joint discovery plan. All of this work can be performed via 9 electronic and/or postal mail, and by telephone. The Joint Motion, however, lacks any 10 insight into why these routine processes have apparently broken down and warrant the 11 Parties’ request to further set back the deadlines set forth in the ENE Order. In short, the 12 Parties have failed to convince the Court that sufficient good cause exists to grant a three- 13 month continuance of the April 13, 2020 ENE and allow such a continuance to impose a 14 cascading effect on other deadlines associated with the ENE. For these reasons, the Court 15 DENIES without prejudice the Parties’ Joint Motion. All operative dates as memorialized 16 in the Court’s February 6, 2020 Scheduling Order remain in effect. 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS all counsel participating in the March 31, 2020 18 Pre-ENE Conference to telephonically appear. The Court further ORDERS all participants 19 in the April 13, 2020 ENE, including all parties vested with full and complete settlement 20 authority, adjusters for Defendant, if insured, and counsel, to telephonically appear for the 21 ENE. No personal appearances for the ENE will be allowed, pursuant to the March 17, 22 2020 Order of the Chief Judge No. 18, which has suspended all personal appearances in 23 ENEs through April 16, 2020 in light of the Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic. 24 For purposes of the March 31, 2020 Pre-ENE Conference, as set forth in the ENE 25 Order (Doc. No. 6), the Court will initiate the call to the attorneys. However, for purposes 26 of the April 13, 2020 ENE, all participants are ORDERED to dial Chambers’ conference 27 phone number no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, April 13, 2020 to make their 28 telephonic appearances. Chambers’ conference phone number is (888) 363- 4734; the 1 access code is 9189689. The Parties and their counsel shall initiate their participation in 2 ||the telephonic ENE by first dialing the conference phone number and then following all 3 ||instructions as prompted. Should anyone experience technical difficulty in connecting with 4 ||the Court through the conference phone number, they shall immediately contact this 5 ||Court’s Chambers via telephone at (619) 557-6384. 6 Finally, counsel is responsible for designating one attorney for each party to serve 7 the party’s point-of-contact with the Court. No later than Monday, April 6, 2020, each 8 || attorney acting as the point-of-contact shall lodge his/ her direct telephone number and the 9 ||names of all individuals who will participate in the ENE on their client’s behalf, including 10 parties themselves, insurance adjusters, if any, and counsel. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: March 24, 2020 | : Se 13 14 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28