Palasi v. Transunion, LLC

Opinion

ANDREA PALASI, Case No.: 22-CV-1888-AJB-WVG

Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION v. TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES TRANSUNION, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. On July 7, 2023, the Parties submitted a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines seeking a ninety-day extension of the Court’s Scheduling Order. (“Joint Motion”, Doc. No. 24.) On July 10, 2023, the Court convened a Joint Telephonic Status Conference to discuss the Joint Motion. (Doc. No. 27.) Brett F. Bodie appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Andrea Palasi. Robin G. Sagstetter appeared on behalf of Defendant IQ Data International, Inc. Having conferred with counsel and reviewed the Joint Motion, the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 16(b)(4)”) governs when a Court may modify a scheduling order. In determining whether to modify a scheduling order, the Court considers the “good cause” standard set out by Rule 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the parties seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it 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 to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment); Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J.1990); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 132 F.R.D. 213, 217 (N.D.Ind.1990); Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 1987); 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). Moreover, Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires all counsel “take all steps necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” Civ. L.R. 16.1(b). In the Joint Motion and during the Joint Telephonic Status Conference, counsel for the Parties represented that the only discovery remaining in the case is related to the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”), Plaintiff’s expert’s review of Defendant’s PMK’s deposition transcript, and Plaintiff’s expert’s production of his expert report and rebuttal expert report. (Doc. No. 24 at 4-5.) Good cause appearing, the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The July 14, 2023 fact and expert discovery deadlines are modified solely for the purposes of allowing (1) the Parties to conduct the deposition of Defendant’s PMK, (2) Plaintiff’s expert’s review of Defendant’s PMK’s deposition transcript, and (3) Plaintiff’s expert’s to produce his expert report and rebuttal report. Accordingly, the February 14, 2023 Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 13) is modified as follows: Deadline Current Date New Date Expert Designations May 12, 2023 August 11, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Designations June 14, 2023 August 25, 2023 Expert Disclosures May 12, 2023 August 11, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures June 14, 2023 August 25, 2023 Fact and Expert Discovery Cutoff July 14, 2023 September 1, 2023 | ||| Pre-trial Motions Cutoff August 14, 2023 October 2, 2023 Mandatory Settlement August 8, 2023 September 15, 2023 at ) Conference 9:00 a.m. Pre-trial Disclosures November 16, 2023 January 4, 2024 Pre-trial Order Meet and Confer November 22, 2023 January 11, 2024 Objections to Pre-trial Order November 30, 2023 January 18, 2024 Proposed Pre-trial Conference December 7, 2023 January 25, 2024 Order Pre-trial Conference December 14, 2023 at | February 1, 2024 at 2:30 pm 2:00 p.m. DATED: July 11, 2023 LA Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge