Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 3, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01195
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARISA MARTINEZ, Case No.: 19-CV-1195-GPC-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 13 v. CONTINUE EXPERT DISCLOSURE DATE 14 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16

17 On March 2, 2020, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Expert Disclosure 18 Date. (Doc. No. 14.) The Parties move the Court to continue (1) the March 6, 2020 expert 19 disclosure deadline, as set by the operative Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 5), to April 20, 20 2020; (2) the April 3, 2020 supplemental and/or rebuttal expert disclosures deadline to May 21 18, 2020; and (3) the May 1, 2020 expert discovery cut-off to June 15, 2020. Based on the 22 Parties’ representations, the primary impetus for the Joint Motion appears to be Plaintiff’s 23 expert’s unavailability to complete her expert report by the deadline provided in the 24 Scheduling Order due to her two-week vacation beginning in March 2020. (Doc. No. 14, 25 2:24-27.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Parties’ Joint Motion. 26 Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides an operative scheduling 27 order may only be amended for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The good cause standard 28 1 informed by the parties’ diligence throughout discovery. Lerma-Mayoral v. City of El 2 || Centro, 2017 WL 1807905, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2017); Zivkovic v. S. California Edison 3 || Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Absent a showing of diligence, the Court’s 4 ||inquiry ends, and the timetable the operative scheduling order establishes remains binding. 5 || Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.1992); Matrix Motor 6 || Co. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 671 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2003). 7 The Parties have failed to meet the standard set forth in Rule 16(b). The Joint Motion 8 lacks any explanation regarding when Plaintiff's counsel first became aware of Plaintiffs 9 ||expert’s unavailability to complete the expert report in compliance with the operative 10 scheduling order. In that vein, the Joint Motion does not suggest Plaintiff's counsel even 11 |}considered retaining alternative experts with greater availability in an effort to meet the 12 || Court’s deadline, or why such consideration was not possible. The Joint Motion also fails 13 || to explain why the Parties waited to bring their Joint Motion just four days before the expert 14 || disclosure deadline on March 6, 2020. 15 Moreover, the Joint Motion contradicts the Parties’ representation in their January 16 || 16, 2020 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order that their requested continuance of the 17 discovery cut-off “would not affect the remainder of the dates and deadlines in the 18 Scheduling Order.” (Doc. No. 10, 3:10-21.) At the time, the Court relied on the Parties’ 19 |/representation when it granted the Parties’ January 16, 2020 Joint Motion and extended the 20 || fact discovery cut-off in its January 22, 2020 Order (Doc. No. 12) following a discovery 21 conference on the matter earlier that day. Now, the Parties represent otherwise and seek to 22 ||set back three additional dates in the August 23, 2019 Scheduling Order, all without 23 || establishing exactly how they have applied their best efforts to meet the expert discovery- 24 related dates set forth in the Scheduling Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: March 3, 2020 Se 26 | MS ~ 7 Hon. William V. Gallo 08 United States Magistrate Judge