Vaughn v. Parker

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARIFFE VAUGHN, Case No.: 18cv2098-JAH-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 13 v. APPLICATION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 14 A. PARKER, Correctional Officer,

15 Defendant. [ECF No. 58] 16 17 On September 26, 2019, Defendant A. Parker moved for a sixty-day 18 continuance of the September 30, 2019 expert discovery cut-off date for the 19 limited purpose of deposing each party’s experts in this matter. (ECF No. 20 58). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. (See Docket). 21 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 22 judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard 23 “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment.” Johnson 24 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 25 Defendant contends good cause exists to extend the deadline because 26 the parties could “evaluate the need and/or scope of costly expert depositions, 1 motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 58 at 2). Defendant contends he 9 ||has been diligent because the instant motion was filed “before the September 3 2019 expert cut-off.” Ud. at 2). Defendant concedes, however, that to 4 ||date, no deposition notices have been served. (/d.). 5 The Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated good cause or 6 || diligence. The parties have known since the Court’s April 26, 2019 Order 7 ||that the pretrial motions deadline and expert discovery completion date are 8 || September 30, 2019. (ECF No. 19). No good cause is provided for failing to 9 || notice the depositions of the parties’ experts in advance of the expert 10 discovery completion date. (See ECF No. 58). The fact that a motion for 11 ||Summary judgment is pending is not good cause. Accordingly, Defendant’s 12 |}motion is DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 27, 2019 Mitel by. [= Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27