Saint-Martin et al v. Price et al

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER: Expert Disclosure due by 8/8/2019; Rebuttal Expert Disclosure due by 9/9/2019; Non-Dispositive Motions filed by 12/4/2019; Dispositive Motions filed by 1 /21/2020; Settlement Conference set for 10/29/2019 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, Pretrial Conference set for 3/30/2020 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd; Bench Trial set for 6/2/2020 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/10/2019. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL SAINT-MARTIN,

12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.
BRANDON PRICE,

14

Defendant.

15

No. 1:18-cv-00123-DAD-SKO
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. 40)

16
17

On March 29, 2019, Defendant filed an ex parte application to modify the scheduling order

18

in this case (“Ex Parte Application”). (Doc. 40.) Defendant’s Ex Parte Application requests a six-

19

month continuance of the trial and pre-trial dates “to accommodate (1) additional time to take the

20

deposition of Plaintiff Michael Saint-Martin due to the unavailability of Plaintiff’s counsel for his

21

noticed deposition in March 2019, and (2) Defendant’s production of digital documents maintained

22

by over 20 custodians pending receipt of a signed stipulation and an order approving such

23

stipulation.” (Id. at 1.) Defense counsel states that she emailed Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the

24

intent to file the Ex Parte Application, but did not receive a response. (Doc. 41-1, Declaration of

25

Lisa Tillman, ¶ 13.)

26

On April 1, 2019, the Court entered a minute order ordering Plaintiff to file a response in

27

opposition or statement of non-opposition, if any, by no later than April 8, 2019. (Doc. 41.) The

28

Court advised Plaintiff that if he failed to file a response, Defendant’s Ex Parte Application would

1

be deemed unopposed. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendant’s Ex Parte

2

Application. (See Docket.)

3

Requests to modify a scheduling order are governed by Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules

4

of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court may modify a scheduling order “only for good

5

cause.” Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v.

6

Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 10 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000). A trial court may also consider prejudice

7

to any opposing party in ruling on a motion to modify the scheduling order. Id. at 1295.

8

As set forth in Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to modify the scheduling order, Defendant

9

has been diligent in complying with the Court’s scheduling order and seeking an amendment.

10

Defendant attempted to take Plaintiff’s deposition in March 2019, but Plaintiff’s counsel canceled

11

the deposition due to another commitment and informed Defendant she was not available during

12

the first week of April 2019. (Doc. 40 at 4.) The parties have also been discussing the terms of a

13

stipulated protective order since January 2019, which Defendant seeks prior to responding to

14

Plaintiff’s request for production. (Id. at 5.) Defendant asserts that even once the protective order

15

is entered, “Defendant requires at least four months to collect, review for privilege and relevance,

16

and produce the sought documents, and Plaintiff requires time to challenge any such production.”

17

Accordingly, in view of the good cause shown and absence of any prejudice to Plaintiff, as

18

evidenced by his lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to

19

modify the scheduling order (Doc. 40), and ORDERS that the Scheduling Order, (Doc. 32), be

20

modified as follows:

21

1.

The non-expert discovery cut-off is extended only for the two following matters:

22

a. Defendant may take the deposition of Plaintiff by May 31, 2019.

23

b. Defendant may produce electronic documents responsive to Plaintiffs request

24
25
26
27
28

for production, set one and special interrogatories, set one, by August 1, 2019.
2.

The expert disclosure deadline, currently set for March 4, 2019, shall be continued

to August 8, 2019.
3.

The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, currently set for April 5, 2019, shall be

continued to September 9, 2019
2

1

4.

2

October 10, 2019.

3

5.

4

6.

7.

8.

The pretrial conference, currently set for September 23, 2019, shall be continued to

March 30, 2020, at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

11
12

The settlement conference, currently set for April 23, 2019, shall be continued to

October 29, 2019, at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

9
10

The deadline for the parties to file dispositive motions, currently set for June 4,

2019, shall be continued to December 3, 2019, to be heard on or before January 21, 2020.

7
8

The deadline for the parties to file non-dispositive motions, currently set for May

7, 2019, shall be continued to November 5, 2019, to be heard on or before December 4, 2019.

5
6

The expert discovery cut-off, currently set for May 6, 2019, shall be continued to

9.

The trial, currently set for December 3, 2019, shall be continued to June 2, 2020, at

1:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 10, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.