Morneau v. Protective Life Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. California·Decided May 3, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-01861·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 CRISTIN MORNEAU, individually; Case No.: 3:22-cv-01861-W-AHG KELLY STRANGE, individually; AND 13 ORDER: Cristin Morneau and Kelly Strange,

14 jointly as successors-in-interest to (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO Carolyn A. Morneau and on behalf of the 15 EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES, ESTATE OF CAROLYN A. MORNEAU, and 16 Plaintiffs, 17 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED v. SCHEDULING ORDER 18 PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE 19 COMPANY, [ECF No. 26] 20 Defendant. 21 22 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order. ECF 23 No. 26. The parties seek an order from the Court extending certain discovery deadlines by 24 approximately 60 days. Id. 25 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 26 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 27 the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 24 at 6 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates set forth 28 herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 1 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). 2 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 3 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 4 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 5 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 6 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 7 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 8 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 9 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 10 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 11 19, 2018). 12 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they have been working 13 diligently to abide by the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF Nos. 24). ECF No. 26. The 14 parties represent that both sides have propounded interrogatories, requests for production 15 (“RFP”), and requests for admission (“RFA”). Id. at 4. Discovery responses have been 16 served, including several thousand pages of documents. Id. The parties “are exploring 17 settlement” and seek an order from the Court extending the fact discovery deadline and 18 discovery dispute notification deadline by approximately 60 days so that they can evaluate 19 the potential for early settlement without having to simultaneously litigate the case and 20 take depositions. Id. 21 The Court appreciates the parties’ thorough motion, and that the parties have been 22 working together and have diligently pursued discovery. Thus, the Court finds good cause 23 to GRANT IN PART1 the motion. ECF No. 26. The Court issues the following Amended 24 Scheduling Order: 25 26 1 Though “[t]he parties do not currently anticipate that the requested extension will have 27 any effect on the other dates and deadlines in place in this matter,” (ECF No. 26 at 4), due to the length of the extension, certain (not all) pretrial deadlines have been modified. 28 1 1. Given that the parties are exploring settlement, the Court finds that a 2 settlement conference will be beneficial. As such, a Settlement Conference shall be 3 conducted on June 5, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. via videoconference before Magistrate Judge 4 Allison H. Goddard.2 The Court requires the personal attendance of all parties, party 5 representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the primary 6 attorney(s) responsible for the litigation at the conference. Each party must prepare a 7 Confidential Settlement Letter, to be lodged no later May 26, 2023. The Confidential 8 Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not 9 filed). The substance of the Confidential Letter must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s 10 Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located at 11 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Mandatory%20Settlem 12 ent%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). No later than May 26, 2023, each party must submit to 13 the Court via email (not filed) (at efile goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, titles, and 14 email addresses of all attendees. The Court will then send out the Zoom invitation to all 15 attendees. All participants shall display the same level of professionalism during the 16 Settlement Conference and be prepared to devote their full attention to the Settlement 17 Conference as if they were attending in person, i.e., cannot be driving or in a car while 18 speaking to the Court. Because Zoom may quickly deplete the battery of a participant’s 19 device, each participant should ensure that their device is plugged in or that a charging 20 cable is readily available during the video conference. Counsel are advised that although 21 the Settlement Conference will take place on Zoom, all participants shall appear and 22 conduct themselves as if it is proceeding in a courtroom, i.e., all participants must dress in 23 appropriate courtroom attire. 24 / / 25

26 27 2 Upon receipt of a joint email (to efile goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) containing a firm date for private mediation and the name of the mediator, the settlement conference will come 28 1 2. By August 14, 2023, if the parties reach an impasse after substantial meet and 2 confer efforts, the parties may bring any discovery dispute to the Court’s attention via email 3 (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) regarding: (1) Plaintiff Morneau’s responses to 4 written discovery served on March 31, 2023; (2) Defendant’s responses to RFPs served on 5 April 13, 2023; (3) Defendant’s responses to interrogatories and RFAs served on 6 April 21, 2023; and (4) Plaintiff Strange’s responses to written discovery served on 7 May 1, 2023. 8 3. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by August 29, 2023. 9 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 11 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 12 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 13 Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard 14 to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to comply 15 in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of 16 the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by 17 the court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without 18 court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an 19 impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must e-mail chambers at 20 efile goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of service of the 21 written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the 22 Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed 23 times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral 24 statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ 25 position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may 26 be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the 27 movant has obtained leave of Court.

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

Morneau v. Protective Life Insurance Company, (S.D. Cal. 2023).

Morneau v. Protective Life Insurance Company (Morneau v. Protective Life Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.
624 F.3d 1253 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)