Lien v. City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANDY LIEN et al., Case No.: 21-CV-224-MMA(WVG)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On March 8, 2022, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order 19 (“Joint Motion”) seeking the Court’s approval to modify the August 25, 2021, Scheduling 20 Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings (“Scheduling Order”). (Doc. 21 No. 40.) The Joint Motion requested that the Court (1) extend the fact discovery deadline 22 and all other deadlines set in the Scheduling Order, and (2) extend all discovery deadlines 23 set in the Scheduling Order by 60 days. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 24 (1) a first extension of all discovery deadlines set in the Court’s Scheduling Order, 25 including the fact discovery cutoffs, and (2) extends all discovery deadlines in the 26 Scheduling Order by 60 days. 27 As provided in the Court’s Scheduling Order, the dates and times set forth in the 28 Scheduling Order will not be modified except for good cause shown. In determining 1 whether to modify a scheduling order the Court considers the “good cause” standard set 2 out by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) (“Rule 16(b)(4)”). Rule 16(b)(4) provides 3 a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. Rule 4 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 5 amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be 6 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory 8 committee’s notes (1983 amendment); Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck Importers, Inc., 9 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J.1990); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 132 F.R.D. 213, 10 217 (N.D.Ind.1990); Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987); 6A Wright, 11 Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990) (“good 12 cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s diligence). Moreover, 13 Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires all counsel “take all steps necessary to bring an action to 14 readiness for trial.” Civ. L.R. 16.1(b). 15 The Court finds the Parties have made a diligent effort to conduct discovery within 16 the Scheduling Order’s deadlines. Plaintiffs have already completed their written fact 17 discovery. Defendants’ have also made meaningful progress during fact discovery. 18 Defendants’ remaining fact discovery entails obtaining Plaintiffs’ responses to written 19 discovery requests Defendants have already propounded and deposing Plaintiffs thereafter. 20 The Court further finds good cause in Plaintiff Erin Smith’s unforeseeable selection to 21 serve as a juror for a three-week jury trial, which will not be completed until March 18, 22 2022. Given the trial in which she must serve as a juror, Plaintiff Erin Smith’s 23 unavailability during the remainder of the fact discovery period renders the Parties unable 24 to complete fact discovery by March 25, 2022, as the operative Scheduling Order presently 25 requires. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the following deadlines: 26 1. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties no later than May 24, 2022. 27 2. The parties must designate their respective experts in writing no later than June 28 24, 2022. l 3. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts must be on or before July 8, 2022. 2 4. No later than August 8, 2022, each party must comply with the disclosure 3 provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4 5. Any party must supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 5 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) on or before August 22, 2022. 6 6. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties no later than September 7 20, 2022. 8 7. All dispositive pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment and 9 motions addressing Daubert issues, must be filed on or before October 21, 2022. 10 8. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on June 3, 2022, at 9:00 1] a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo. 12 Absent an unequivocal showing of good cause, no further extensions to the 13 Scheduling Order will be granted. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: March 9, 2022 : Se 16 7 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28