1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHALIECIA WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:19-cv-691-AJB-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER:
13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 14 CAMDEN USA INC., et al., CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES, and 15 Defendants.
16 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 17
18 [ECF No. 59]
20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for extension of discovery deadlines. 21 ECF No. 59. The parties seek an order from the Court extending certain case management 22 deadlines by approximately two to five weeks. Id. at 4–5. 23 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate 24 good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause 25 and with the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 39 at ¶ 15 (operative scheduling order, stating 26 that “[t]he dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 27 shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of 28 1 good cause for the request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be 2 done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 3 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 4 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 5 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 6 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 8 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 9 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 10 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 11 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12 19, 2018). 13 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that Plaintiff has produced her 14 medical and employment records, Defendant has responded to 3 sets of interrogatories and 15 4 sets of requests for production, and they have completed depositions of Plaintiff, 16 Plaintiff’s mother, and Defendant’s property manager. ECF No. 59 at 2–3. Five depositions 17 are scheduled for the first two weeks of October, records from a third-party subpoena have 18 yet to be produced, Plaintiff is in the midst of responding to requests for production, and 19 the parties are working together to get two other depositions on calendar. Id. at 3–4. Both 20 parties’ counsel have extensive discovery and trials in other matters. Id. at 4. Further, 21 defense counsel is responsible for event planning for an upcoming 5-day ABTL seminar. 22 Id. Thus, despite their diligent efforts, the parties have represented to the Court that they 23 are unlikely to be able to complete all outstanding fact discovery by the October 22 24 deadline in this case, and seek two to five week extensions of the fact discovery and expert 25 discovery deadlines. Id. at 4–5. 26 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together, commends the 27 parties on their thorough motion, and finds that they have demonstrated diligence. 28 1 Therefore, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the joint motion. As such, the Court 2 ORDERS1 as follows: 3 1. The parties must disclose the identity of their respective experts in writing by 4 December 21, 2021. The date for the disclosure of the identity of rebuttal experts must be 5 on or before January 11, 2022. The written designations must include the name, address 6 and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert 7 is expected to provide. The list must also include the normal rates the expert charges for 8 deposition and trial testimony. The parties must identify any person who may be used 9 at trial to present evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and 705, respectively. 10 This requirement is not limited to retained experts. 11 2. On or before December 21, 2021, each party must comply with the disclosure 12 provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 13 requirement applies to all persons retained or specifically employed to provide expert 14 testimony or whose duties as an employee of the part regularly involve the giving of 15 expert testimony. 16 3. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 17 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(c) by January 11, 2022. 18 4. Please be advised that failure to comply with this section or any other 19 discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 37 including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated 21 matters in evidence. 22 5. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties on or before 23 November 30, 2021. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before 24 February 11, 2022. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the 25 26 27 1 The remaining deadlines set forth in the Court’s original scheduling order remain in place. ECF No. 39 at ¶¶ 6–13; see also ECF No. 59 at ¶ 12. The Court repeats these unchanged 28 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated 2 a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by 3 the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth 4 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet 5 and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 6 26.1(a). A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery 7 issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this 8 requirement will be recognized by the court. The Court expects counsel to make every 9 effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer 10 process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must e-mail 11 chambers at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of 12 service of the written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference 13 with the Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three 14 proposed times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a 15 neutral statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ 16 position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may 17 be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the 18 movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply 19 with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 20 6. All other dispositive motions, including those addressing Daubert issues, 21 must be filed on or before March 4, 2022.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHALIECIA WILLIAMS, Case No.: 3:19-cv-691-AJB-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER:
13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 14 CAMDEN USA INC., et al., CONTINUE DISCOVERY DEADLINES, and 15 Defendants.
16 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 17
18 [ECF No. 59]
20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for extension of discovery deadlines. 21 ECF No. 59. The parties seek an order from the Court extending certain case management 22 deadlines by approximately two to five weeks. Id. at 4–5. 23 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate 24 good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause 25 and with the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 39 at ¶ 15 (operative scheduling order, stating 26 that “[t]he dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 27 shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of 28 1 good cause for the request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be 2 done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 3 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 4 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 5 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 6 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 8 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 9 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 10 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 11 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12 19, 2018). 13 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that Plaintiff has produced her 14 medical and employment records, Defendant has responded to 3 sets of interrogatories and 15 4 sets of requests for production, and they have completed depositions of Plaintiff, 16 Plaintiff’s mother, and Defendant’s property manager. ECF No. 59 at 2–3. Five depositions 17 are scheduled for the first two weeks of October, records from a third-party subpoena have 18 yet to be produced, Plaintiff is in the midst of responding to requests for production, and 19 the parties are working together to get two other depositions on calendar. Id. at 3–4. Both 20 parties’ counsel have extensive discovery and trials in other matters. Id. at 4. Further, 21 defense counsel is responsible for event planning for an upcoming 5-day ABTL seminar. 22 Id. Thus, despite their diligent efforts, the parties have represented to the Court that they 23 are unlikely to be able to complete all outstanding fact discovery by the October 22 24 deadline in this case, and seek two to five week extensions of the fact discovery and expert 25 discovery deadlines. Id. at 4–5. 26 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together, commends the 27 parties on their thorough motion, and finds that they have demonstrated diligence. 28 1 Therefore, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the joint motion. As such, the Court 2 ORDERS1 as follows: 3 1. The parties must disclose the identity of their respective experts in writing by 4 December 21, 2021. The date for the disclosure of the identity of rebuttal experts must be 5 on or before January 11, 2022. The written designations must include the name, address 6 and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert 7 is expected to provide. The list must also include the normal rates the expert charges for 8 deposition and trial testimony. The parties must identify any person who may be used 9 at trial to present evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and 705, respectively. 10 This requirement is not limited to retained experts. 11 2. On or before December 21, 2021, each party must comply with the disclosure 12 provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 13 requirement applies to all persons retained or specifically employed to provide expert 14 testimony or whose duties as an employee of the part regularly involve the giving of 15 expert testimony. 16 3. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 17 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(c) by January 11, 2022. 18 4. Please be advised that failure to comply with this section or any other 19 discovery order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 37 including a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated 21 matters in evidence. 22 5. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties on or before 23 November 30, 2021. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before 24 February 11, 2022. “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the 25 26 27 1 The remaining deadlines set forth in the Court’s original scheduling order remain in place. ECF No. 39 at ¶¶ 6–13; see also ECF No. 59 at ¶ 12. The Court repeats these unchanged 28 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated 2 a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by 3 the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth 4 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet 5 and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 6 26.1(a). A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery 7 issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this 8 requirement will be recognized by the court. The Court expects counsel to make every 9 effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer 10 process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must e-mail 11 chambers at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of 12 service of the written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference 13 with the Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three 14 proposed times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a 15 neutral statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ 16 position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may 17 be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the 18 movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply 19 with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 20 6. All other dispositive motions, including those addressing Daubert issues, 21 must be filed on or before March 4, 2022. Please be advised that counsel for the moving 22 party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the 23 motion. Motions in Limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise 24 set by Judge Battaglia. 25 7. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on May 4, 2022 at 26 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. Plaintiff must serve 27 on Defendant a written settlement proposal, which must include a specific demand 28 amount, no later than April 13, 2022. The defendant must respond to the plaintiff in 1 writing with a specific offer amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties 2 should not file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties must 3 include their written settlement proposals in their respective Settlement Conference 4 Statements to the Court. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person or by 5 phone no later than April 20, 2022. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference 6 Statement, which will be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later 7 than April 26, 2022. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 8 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of the Settlement Conference 9 Statement must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference 10 Rules (located at 11 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Mandatory%20Settlem 12 ent%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential 13 Settlement Letter for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than 14 April 26, 2022. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 15 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a party choose to prepare a Letter, 16 the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s 17 Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules. All parties are ordered to read and to fully 18 comply with the Chambers Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of 19 Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 20 8. Counsel must comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 21 Civ. P. 26(a)(3) on or before June 9, 2022. 22 9. This order replaces the requirements under Civ. L. R. 16.1.f.6.c. No 23 Memoranda of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed. 24 10. The parties must meet and confer on or before June 16, 2022 and prepare a 25 proposed pretrial order in the form as set forth in Civ. L. R. 16.1.f.6. 26 The Court encourages the parties to consult with the assigned magistrate judge to 27 work out any problems in preparation of the proposed pretrial order. The court will 28 entertain any questions concerning the conduct of the trial at the pretrial conference. 1 11. Objections to Pre-trial disclosures must be filed no later than June 23, 2022. 2 12. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order as described above must be 3 || prepared, served and lodged with the assigned district judge on or before June 30, 2022. 4 13. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 5 || Anthony J. Battaglia on July 7, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. 6 14. A post trial settlkement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 7 || within 30 days of verdict in the case. 8 15. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 9 || shown. 10 16. Dates and times for hearings on motions must be approved by the Court's clerk 11 || before notice of hearing is served. 12 17. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 13 || must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district judge. No reply 14 ||memorandum will exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district judge. Briefs and 15 memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length must have a table of contents and a table of 16 || authorities cited. 17 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. " Dated: October 1, 2021 - 20 pion H. 5] Honorable Allison i. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28