Pouliot v. Mechling

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 10, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00221
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMON POULIOT; and TWINS Case No.: 21-CV-221-JO-WVG SPECIAL CO. LTD., 12 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION Plaintiffs, 13 TO MODIFY COURT’S v. SCHEDULING ORDER AND 14 EXTEND FACT AND EXPERT NICHOLAS MECHLING; and 15 DISCOVERY DEADLINES CHRISTOPHER MECHLING, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On June 10, 2022, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify the Court’s Scheduling 20 Order and Extend Fact and Expert Discovery Deadlines (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. No. 64.) 21 The Joint Motion requested the Court extend the fact and expert discovery deadlines by 90 22 days due to Defendants Nicholas Mechling and Christopher Mechling’s (collectively, 23 “Defendants”) Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Counterclaims (“Motion 24 for Leave”) pending before Honorable Jinsook Ohta. (Doc. No. 48.) For the reasons set 25 forth below, the Joint Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 26 As provided in the Court’s Scheduling Order, the dates and times set forth in the 27 Scheduling Order will not be modified except for good cause shown. In determining 28 whether to modify a scheduling order the Court considers the “good cause” standard set 1 out by Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 16(b)(4)”). Rule 2 16(b)(4) provides a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 3 consent. Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the 4 party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it 5 cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson 6 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 7 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment); Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck 8 Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J.1990); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 9 132 F.R.D. 213, 217 (N.D.Ind.1990); Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 10 1987); 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d 11 ed. 1990) (“good cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s 12 diligence). Moreover, Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires all counsel “take all steps 13 necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” Civ. L.R. 16.1(b). 14 The Court finds good cause does not exist to extend the fact and expert discovery 15 deadlines as the Parties have not demonstrated any reason why they are unable to complete 16 discovery related to the Complaint currently at issue in this case. The Parties’ request to 17 extend fact and expert discovery is predicated on an assumption that the Parties will not 18 have sufficient time to conduct discovery related to Defendants’ cross-complaint once 19 Defendants’ Motion for Leave is granted. The Court does not find this persuasive as the 20 justification to extend deadlines would be moot if Defendants’ Motion for Leave is denied. 21 The pending Motion for Leave does not preclude the Parties from diligently 22 conducting discovery related to the current live claims in the operative Complaint. In fact, 23 the Joint Motion itself states: “Accordingly, the parties have been diligent in their efforts 24 to conduct discovery while Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend is pending.” (Doc. 25 No. 64, at 4:12-13.) Intervenor Plaintiff Twins Special Co., LTD propounded discovery 26 onto Defendants on January 12, 2022 and received written responses on February 18, 2022. 27 Defendants provided document productions on April 12, 2022 and May 13, 2022, and 28 supplemental written responses on May 6, 2022. The Parties have also raised discovery 1 || disputes with this Court on March 17, 2022, April 18, 2022, and May 25, 2022. Despite 2 pending Motion for Leave, the Parties appear to have proceeded on with discovery. 3 The Court does not find good cause exists to extend the current fact and expert 4 ||discovery deadlines. The Parties may renew their request to continue fact and expert 5 || deadlines if Honorable Judge Ohta grants or has not ruled on Defendants’ Motion for Leave 6 or before the fact discovery deadline of July 11, 2022. 7 The Court reaffirms the deadlines and due dates in its Scheduling Order, and the 8 Parties should proceed expeditiously in conducting any remaining discovery. The Joint 9 || Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: June 10, 2022 : Se 12 B Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28