Young v. County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JOE M. YOUNG, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02441-H-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 v. TO VACATE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., ALL PRETRIAL DEADLINES 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 35] 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion vacate the upcoming Mandatory 26 Settlement Conference (“MSC”) and pretrial deadlines. ECF No. 35. Because Defendants’ 27 motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is pending, the parties seek to postpone 28 the May 6 MSC and all other case management deadlines. ECF No. 35 at 2. 1 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 2 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 3 the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 14 at 5 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates set forth 4 herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also Chmb.R. at 2 (stating 5 that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). 6 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 7 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 8 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 9 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 10 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 11 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 12 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 13 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 14 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 15 19, 2018). 16 Here, the parties request that the MSC be continued from the current date of 17 May 6, 2022, because the Court has not yet ruled on Defendants’ pending motion for partial 18 summary judgment. ECF No. 35 (referring to ECF No. 30). The parties believe the MSC 19 will not be fruitful until the Court has issued its ruling on that motion. ECF No. 35 at 2 20 (“having a settlement conference prior to the ruling on the motion would be inefficient and 21 make settlement discussions less useful”). Similarly, the parties contend that “[i]t would 22 be a waste of resources for the parties to complete the pretrial work as well as a waste of 23 the Court’s resources to go forward with the upcoming pretrial conference if portions of 24 the case are disposed of through Summary Judgment.” Id. Thus, the parties seek to vacate 25 or reset all remaining dates and deadlines in the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 14). ECF No. 26 35 at 3. 27 / / 28 / / 1 Regarding the upcoming MSC, the deficient’ Joint Motion (ECF No. 35) is 2 || DENIED. The purpose of the MSC is to attempt to help the parties reach a settlement that 3 represents a compromise before the parties know whether those claims have been resolved 4 |}on summary judgment. In the Court’s experience, compromise is best reached in an 5 atmosphere of uncertainty regarding the outcome of the case. Accordingly, the MSC will 6 ||move forward on May 6, 2022. All dates, deadlines, and requirements set forth in the 7 || Court’s order modifying the MSC to take place via videoconference (see ECF No. 33 at 4, 8 n.5) remain in place. 9 Regarding the remaining pretrial conference deadlines, the Joint Motion is DENIED 10 || without prejudice. Accordingly, all dates, deadlines, and requirements set forth in the 11 |}Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 14) remain in place. The parties may file a renewed 12 ||joint motion for continuance no earlier than May 9, 2022. Any future motion for 13 continuance must outline the reasons why each deadline cannot be met and show that the 14 || parties have been diligent. 16 || Dated: April 20, 2022 17 _ Awan. Honorable Allison H. Goddard 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 54 ' Compare Chmb.R. at 2 (Chambers Rules, requiring that “‘all requests for continuances must be made by a joint motion no less than seven calendar days before the affected □□□□□□ 25 ||(emphasis added) with ECF No. 35 (instant motion, filed two days before the pre-MSC 5 meet and confer deadline). Compare Chmb.R. at 3 (Chambers Rules, requiring that all 6 requests for continuances include “a declaration from the counsel seeking the continuance 27 || that describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons 28 why the deadlines cannot be met”) (emphasis added) with ECF No. 35 (instant motion, with no declaration).