Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco

N.D. California

Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco

District Court, N.D. California·Decided March 4, 2025·No. 3:18-cv-01494·Unknown

Opinion

TATYANA LITVINOVA, Case No. 18-cv-01494-RS Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

Defendant.

KRISTEN SILLOWAY, Case No. 20-cv-7400-RS Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCES

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Defendant.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-3, 7-1, and 40-1, Defendant moved for a trial continuance in both of these related cases, explaining that its lead trial counsel was unavailable for the scheduled dates. See Silloway et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 20-cv-7400 (“Silloway”), Dkt. No. 98; Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco, No. 18-cv-1494 (“Litvinova”), Dkt. No. 136. The Silloway Plaintiffs opposed the motion and countered with their own, explaining, inter alia, that some of the dates proposed by Defendant failed to allow enough time to accommodate what they characterize as “significant delays in fact and expert discovery caused by the City.” Silloway, Dkt. No. 99 at 1. In their view, not only should trial be continued but also all other deadlines in the case for at least 60 days. Id. The Litvinova plaintiffs joined in that motion, see Litvinova, Dkt. No. 137. In response, Defendant stated that it did not oppose continuing the trial date and deadlines to complete noticed discovery. Silloway, Dkt. No. 102. A court may modify a case’s scheduling order upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause for such a modification exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990) (“good cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s diligence)). The good cause test “turns largely upon the circumstances of the individual case.” United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir. 1985). Conflicts with a scheduled trial can amount to good cause, as can the demands of the discovery process. Good cause therefore appearing, Defendant’s motion to continue trial and Silloway Plaintiffs’ motion to continue discovery deadlines—which Litvinova Plaintiffs joined— are granted. 1. DISCOVERY: The deadline to complete non-expert discovery that has already been noticed shall be continued from February 14, 2025 to April 15, 2025. The limits placed on this discovery in the Court’s November 15, 2024 Case Management Scheduling Order remain in place. 2. EXPERT WITNESSES: The deadline to designate experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) shall be continued from March 15, 2025 to May 14, 2025. The deadline to designate supplemental and rebuttal experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) shall be continued from April 12, 2025 to June 11, 2025. The deadline to complete all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be continued 1 from May 3, 2025 to July 2, 2025. 2 3. PRETRIAL MOTIONS: The deadline to hear pretrial motions, including 3 dispositive pretrial motions filed and served pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7, shall be 4 continued from May 29, 2025 to July 28, 2025. The limits placed on pretrial 5 motions in the Court’s November 15, 2024 Case Management Scheduling Order 6 remain in place. 7 4. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: The final pretrial conference, originally scheduled for 8 July 23, 2025, will be continued to February 9, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 10 California. Each party or lead counsel who will try the case shall attend personally. 11 5. TRIAL: The current trial date of August 4, 2025 shall be continued. A jury trial 12 shall commence on February 17, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, 13 United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 14

a 16 || ITISSO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2025 19 20 ,

RICHARD SEEBORG _ Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 98 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER . CASE Nos. 18-cv-01494-RS, 20-cv-7400-RS

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

TATYANA LITVINOVA, Case No. 18-cv-01494-RS Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

Defendant.

KRISTEN SILLOWAY, Case No. 20-cv-7400-RS Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCES

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Defendant.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-3, 7-1, and 40-1, Defendant moved for a trial continuance in both of these related cases, explaining that its lead trial counsel was unavailable for the scheduled dates. See Silloway et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 20-cv-7400 (“Silloway”), Dkt. No. 98; Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco, No. 18-cv-1494 (“Litvinova”), Dkt. No. 136. The Silloway Plaintiffs opposed the motion and countered with their own, explaining, inter alia, that some of the dates proposed by Defendant failed to allow enough time to accommodate what they characterize as “significant delays in fact and expert discovery caused by the City.” Silloway, Dkt. No. 99 at 1. In their view, not only should trial be continued but also all other deadlines in the case for at least 60 days. Id. The Litvinova plaintiffs joined in that motion, see Litvinova, Dkt. No. 137. In response, Defendant stated that it did not oppose continuing the trial date and deadlines to complete noticed discovery. Silloway, Dkt. No. 102. A court may modify a case’s scheduling order upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause for such a modification exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990) (“good cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s diligence)). The good cause test “turns largely upon the circumstances of the individual case.” United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir. 1985). Conflicts with a scheduled trial can amount to good cause, as can the demands of the discovery process. Good cause therefore appearing, Defendant’s motion to continue trial and Silloway Plaintiffs’ motion to continue discovery deadlines—which Litvinova Plaintiffs joined— are granted. 1. DISCOVERY: The deadline to complete non-expert discovery that has already been noticed shall be continued from February 14, 2025 to April 15, 2025. The limits placed on this discovery in the Court’s November 15, 2024 Case Management Scheduling Order remain in place. 2. EXPERT WITNESSES: The deadline to designate experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) shall be continued from March 15, 2025 to May 14, 2025. The deadline to designate supplemental and rebuttal experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) shall be continued from April 12, 2025 to June 11, 2025. The deadline to complete all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be continued 1 from May 3, 2025 to July 2, 2025. 2 3. PRETRIAL MOTIONS: The deadline to hear pretrial motions, including 3 dispositive pretrial motions filed and served pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7, shall be 4 continued from May 29, 2025 to July 28, 2025. The limits placed on pretrial 5 motions in the Court’s November 15, 2024 Case Management Scheduling Order 6 remain in place. 7 4. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: The final pretrial conference, originally scheduled for 8 July 23, 2025, will be continued to February 9, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 10 California. Each party or lead counsel who will try the case shall attend personally. 11 5. TRIAL: The current trial date of August 4, 2025 shall be continued. A jury trial 12 shall commence on February 17, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, 13 United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 14

a 16 || ITISSO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2025 19 20 ,

RICHARD SEEBORG _ Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 98 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER . CASE Nos. 18-cv-01494-RS, 20-cv-7400-RS

Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco (Litvinova v. The City and County of San Francisco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related