Newman, Jr. v. AECIQ

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01204
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 EDWARD G. NEWMAN JR., No. 2:24-cv-1204 WBS AC individually and on behalf of all 13 others similarly situated, 14 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER1 15 v. 16 AECIQ, a California corporation, 17 Defendant. 18 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Before the court is plaintiff Edward G. Newman Jr.’s 21 motion (Docket No. 16) to modify the scheduling order (Docket 22 No. 14). Plaintiff seeks to modify the deadlines for fact 23 discovery and filing motions as well as the dates for the 24 pretrial conference and jury trial in the court’s scheduling 25 order. (Docket No. 16.) Defendant AECIQ opposes only extending 26

27 1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The scheduled April 28, 28 2025 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED. 1 the deadlines related to discovery. (Docket No. 17.) 2 The pretrial scheduling order set the discovery 3 deadline on March 18, 2025; the motion filing deadline on May 16, 4 2025; the pretrial conference on July 28, 2025; and the trial on 5 September 30, 2025. (Docket No. 14 at 2-4.) Plaintiff proposes 6 moving the discovery deadline to June 16, 2025; the motion filing 7 deadline to August 18, 2025; the pretrial conference to November 8 17, 2025; and the trial to January 27, 2026. (Docket No. 16 at 9 4.)2 10 In his motion, plaintiff states that he “requires 11 additional time in which to compel responses [to discovery 12 requests] from defendant and to take defendant’s deposition after 13 the production of documents prior to class certification.” 14 (Docket No. 16 at 2 (capitalization altered).) Plaintiff 15 explains that he needs this additional time because plaintiff 16 gave defendant “repeated extensions” and made “repeated attempts 17 . . . to obtain a response to whether defendant would provide 18 substantive discovery responses.” (Id.) 19 In opposition, defendant asserts that plaintiff is to 20 blame for his own lack of time since he did not timely file a 21 motion to compel. (See Docket No. 17 at 2-3.) However, 22 defendant does not dispute plaintiff’s representations that its 23 conduct delayed discovery. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that 25 the court may modify its scheduling order “only for good cause.” 26

27 2 The deadlines for expert disclosure and production of expert reports have already passed (see Docket No. 14 at 2-3), 28 and the parties do not address those deadlines in their briefing. 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This standard “primarily considers the 2 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Cont. Assocs. 3 Off. Interiors, Inc. v. Ruiter, No. 07-cv-334 WBS EFB, 2008 WL 4 2420586, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2008) (quoting Johnson v. 5 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992)). 6 “Although the focus of the inquiry is on the moving party’s 7 diligence, ‘the existence or degree of prejudice to the party 8 opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny 9 a motion.’” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) advisory 10 committee’s note to 1983 amendment (“[T]he court may modify the 11 schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be 12 met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”) 13 Plaintiff has shown the requisite diligence to modify 14 the scheduling order. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608-09. 15 Plaintiff indicates that defendant ignored multiple requests to 16 conduct discovery, which led to delays and contributed to 17 plaintiff’s inability to meet the discovery deadlines. (See 18 Docket No. 16 at 2-3.) Moreover, defendant does not identify any 19 reason that extending the discovery deadlines will prejudice it. 20 (See Docket No. 17 at 2-4.) Thus, the court finds good cause to 21 modify the scheduling order. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Docket 23 No. 16) to modify the scheduling order (Docket No. 14) be, and 24 the same hereby is, GRANTED as follows: 25 All discovery, including depositions for preservation 26 of testimony, is left open, save and except that it shall be so 27 conducted as to be completed by June 16, 2025. All motions to 28 compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s nnn een een nnn nnn nn nen enn OI

1 calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court and so 2 that such motions may be heard (and any resulting orders obeyed) 3 not later than June 16, 2025. 4 All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary 5 restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be 6 filed on or before August 18, 2025. 7 The Final Pretrial Conference is set for November 17, 8 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5. 9 The jury trial is set for January 27, 2026, at 9:00 10 a.m. 11 All other matter in the court’s prior scheduling order 12 (Docket No. 14) remains unchanged. 13 | Dated: April 23, 2025 . ak. 2 / 14 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28