Wilson v. Segovia

S.D. California

Wilson v. Segovia

DecidedJuly 6, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-02254

StatusUnknown

This text of Wilson v. Segovia (Wilson v. Segovia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Segovia, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILSON, Case No.: 19-cv-2254-LAB-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 14 SEGOVIA, et al., MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 15 Defendants. ORDER

16 [ECF No. 12] 17 18 19 On June 26, 2020, Defendants moved ex parte to modify the scheduling 20 order regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 12). 21 On March 11, 2020, the court filed a scheduling order setting deadlines for 22 discovery and pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 9). On May 15, 2020, the 23 Court granted defendants’ ex parte application to take the Deposition of 24 Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11). 25 Defendants now request to extend the scheduling order deadlines by 26 sixty days, to September 2020. (ECF No. 12 at 3). In support, Defendants 1 || Rehabilitation (““CDRC”) describing their request to continue all “hearings, 9 || depositions, confidential calls, and in-person meetings through the end of 3 || August 2020” due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 12 at 4 ||6). Defendants point to the CDRC’s potential inability to accommodate 5 || depositions in October or September 2020. Cd. at 2). 6 Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a schedule may be modified 7 |\|“only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause’ g ||standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 9 ||amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 10 || Cir. 1992); Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 11 ||2012). Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that the Federal Rules of Civil 12 || Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court 13 the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of 14 ||every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 1. 15 Presently, the CDRC has requested continuances of all prisoner matters 16 ||through August 2020. (ECF No. 12 at 6). The discovery cutoff is set for 17 || October 12, 2020. (ECF No. 9). There is no exigency at this time, 18 ||Defendants’ motion is premature. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 19 || Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order WITHOUT 99 || PREJUDICE. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: June 30, 2020 Mirdutr » : |. [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27

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 WILSON, Case No.: 19-cv-2254-LAB-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 14 SEGOVIA, et al., MODIFY THE SCHEDULING 15 Defendants. ORDER

16 [ECF No. 12] 17 18 19 On June 26, 2020, Defendants moved ex parte to modify the scheduling 20 order regulating discovery and other pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 12). 21 On March 11, 2020, the court filed a scheduling order setting deadlines for 22 discovery and pre-trial proceedings. (ECF No. 9). On May 15, 2020, the 23 Court granted defendants’ ex parte application to take the Deposition of 24 Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11). 25 Defendants now request to extend the scheduling order deadlines by 26 sixty days, to September 2020. (ECF No. 12 at 3). In support, Defendants 1 || Rehabilitation (““CDRC”) describing their request to continue all “hearings, 9 || depositions, confidential calls, and in-person meetings through the end of 3 || August 2020” due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 12 at 4 ||6). Defendants point to the CDRC’s potential inability to accommodate 5 || depositions in October or September 2020. Cd. at 2). 6 Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a schedule may be modified 7 |\|“only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause’ g ||standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 9 ||amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 10 || Cir. 1992); Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 11 ||2012). Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that the Federal Rules of Civil 12 || Procedure “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court 13 the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of 14 ||every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 1. 15 Presently, the CDRC has requested continuances of all prisoner matters 16 ||through August 2020. (ECF No. 12 at 6). The discovery cutoff is set for 17 || October 12, 2020. (ECF No. 9). There is no exigency at this time, 18 ||Defendants’ motion is premature. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 19 || Defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order WITHOUT 99 || PREJUDICE. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: June 30, 2020 Mirdutr » : |. [> Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson v. Segovia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-segovia-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack