Jones v. Becerra

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW JONES, et al., Case No.: 3:19-cv-1226-L-AHG 12 Plaintiffs,

13 v. ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY DEADLINE 14 XAVIER BECERRA, in his official FOR CLOSE OF FACT DISCOVERY capacity as Attorney General of the State 15 of California, et al., [ECF No. 72] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify Deadline 20 for Close of Fact Discovery, filed on Januay 29, 2021. ECF No. 72. 21 Under Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 22 and with the judge’s consent.” “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been 23 construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 24 Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence 25 of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 26 modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 27 “[T]he court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably 28 be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, advisory 1 committee’s notes to 1983 amendment. Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by 2 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 3 Transportation Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. 4 Sept. 19, 2018). 5 The Court has twice previously granted extensions of the fact discovery deadline, on 6 October 28, 2020 and November 16, 2020. ECF Nos. 65, 71. The parties established good 7 cause for those extensions due to counsel’s unexpectedly heavy caseloads, deposition 8 scheduling challenges, and time-consuming efforts to resolve discovery disputes together 9 without resorting to court intervention. Additionally, with respect to the scheduling order 10 extension granted in November, the Court found good cause for the request in light of 11 Plaintiffs’ pending interlocutory appeal of this Court’s denial of their preliminary 12 injunction motion. See ECF No. 71. 13 Here, the parties explain that, though they have pursued discovery diligently, another 14 extension of the fact discovery deadline from February 16, 2021 to May 14, 2021 is 15 warranted for reasons similar to those underlying their previous extension requests. 16 Namely, the interlocutory appeal is still pending, and the Ninth Circuit has informed the 17 parties that it is considering the appeal for oral argument in May, June, or July. ECF No. 18 72 at 5. Counsel will thus need to devote significant time and resources to the appellate 19 proceeding in the next few months. Further, the counsel for the parties continue to negotiate 20 certain discovery disputes and, still facing heavy caseloads, would benefit from more 21 flexibility in their calendars to reschedule depositions and complete exchange of written 22 discovery without the need for court intervention. Id. at 5-6. Finally, Defendants’ counsel 23 informs the Court that she has suffered three deaths in her family since the Court issued 24 the last scheduling order extension in November, requiring personal time for bereavement. 25 Id. at 5. 26 Upon due consideration, the Court finds the parties have shown good cause to 27 GRANT the joint motion (ECF No. 72). The deadline for completing fact discovery 28 contained in the operative November 16, 2020 scheduling order (ECF No. 71), is extended 1 || to May 14, 2021. All other dates and deadlines remain as previously set. Dates set forth in 2 || this order and in the November 16, 2020 scheduling order may be modified upon a showing 3 || of good cause. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: February 1, 2021 . JpwornH. Xho Honorable Allison H. Goddard 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28