Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 23, 2021
• Docket: 3:17-cv-01709
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHELLE L. MORIARTY, et al., Case No.: 17-CV-1709-BTM-WVG

10 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 11 v. AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES 12 AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14

15 On November 22, 2021, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule 16 Re Discovery Dispute (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. No. 214.) The Parties move the Court to 17 continue the November 29, 2021 deadline to file briefs, consisting of no more than ten (10) 18 pages, on three discovery disputes the Parties raised and explained to Chambers on 19 November 16, 2021. (Id., 2:17-20.) The Parties maintain they need additional time to 20 submit their discovery briefs due to competing filing deadlines leading up to November 21 29, 2021, and because “both parties’ counsel have staff off for the Thanksgiving holiday.” 22 (Id., 2:28-3:1.) Having reviewed and considered the Parties’ submission, the Court 23 GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion and elaborates below. 24 At all times, it is within the Court’s discretion to modify a scheduling order pursuant 25 to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 16”). Fed.R.Civ.P. 16; Johnson 26 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16 “provides a 27 stringent standard whereby the party who seeks to amend the Court's scheduling order must 28 1 show good cause why the Court should set aside or extend a discovery deadline.” Mondares 2 v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 2011 WL 5374613, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2011) (citing 3 Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4)). The Court’s inquiry turns on the movant’s diligence in aiming to 4 comply with the operative scheduling order. Id. (citing Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 5 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). Diligence does not arise from “trials in other cases and 6 counsel’s busy schedule” or staffing shortages. Id. (“these [circumstances] actually militate 7 against a finding of diligence, as counsel essentially admit [they are] litigating other 8 cases.”); Morris v. Sutton, 2019 WL 2089496 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2019) (finding plaintiff 9 was not diligent in seeking an amendment to the operative scheduling order, despite being 10 “sympathetic to Plaintiff’s counsel’s medical issues and other pressing matters that 11 coincided with staffing issues.”). 12 The Court finds the Parties have satisfied the good cause standard and demonstrated 13 diligence, although not in an obvious manner. Indeed, the Joint Motion is bereft of any 14 representations the Parties even attempted to begin working on their respective discovery 15 briefs to meet the November 29, 2021 deadline this Court set. Nevertheless, the Court finds 16 diligence in counsel’s efforts to meet and confer regarding the briefing schedule 17 immediately upon the issuance of the Court’s Order Setting Briefing Schedule and 18 submitting the Joint Motion just several hours later. (Doc. No. 213.) For these two reasons, 19 the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion and CONTINUES the Parties’ deadline to submit 20 their discovery briefs no later than Friday, December 3, 2021. 21 Separately and lastly, counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant are advised to cease 22 ex parte communications with Chambers “except where the purpose of the call is purely 23 administrative, e.g. to provide a telephone number for a telephonic status conference or in 24 exigent circumstances.” R.I, Civil Chambers Rules, Hon. William V. Gallo (2021). 25 Maintaining compliance with all applicable rules, including, but not limited to, this Court’s 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ||Civil Chambers Rule I on Communications with Chambers, is mandatory and not 2 || permissive. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: November 23, 2021 \ 5 | MS ~ 6 Hon. William V. Gallo , United States Magistrate Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28