Winding v. Allstate

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 5/2/2011 ORDERING that Pltf's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. All discovery shall be completed by 7/15/2011. Expert designations and disclosures shall be made by 9/16/2011. Supplemental expert disclosures shall be made by 10/7/2011. All dispositive motions shall be heard by 1/13/2012. All other dates remain unchanged. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
----oo0oo---12
13

JACOB WINDING,
NO. CIV. 2:09-cv-3526 FCD KJN
Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.

ORDER

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,

17
18

Defendants.
_____________________________/

19

----oo0oo----

20

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Jacob Winding’s

21

(“plaintiff”) motion for leave to reopen discovery and extend the

22

discovery cut-off dates in order to propound written discovery

23

and conduct depositions relating to newly asserted affirmative

24

defenses and a counterclaim.

25

Company (“defendant”) opposes the motion.

26

forth below,1 plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Defendant Allstate Insurance
For the reasons set

27
28

1

Because oral argument will not be of material
assistance, the court orders these matters submitted on the
briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

1

This litigation arises out of a claim filed by plaintiff in

2

state court seeking relief from a dispute over an insurance

3

claim.

4

alleging claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract,

5

fraud, and insurer bad faith, defendant filed its Answer and

6

removed the case to this court based on diversity jurisdiction.

7

On April 7, 2010, the court entered its Pretrial Scheduling Order

8

(“PSO”), providing, inter alia, that (1) no further amendments to

9

pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having

After plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint

10

been shown; and (2) discovery shall be completed by April 15,

11

2011.

12

On January 19, 2011, defendant filed a motion to amend its

13

answer to add additional affirmative defenses and a counterclaim

14

based upon evidence revealed during discovery.

15

the motion.

16

motion.

17

counterclaim on March 7, 2011.

18

filed a Motion for Relief from Discovery Cut-Off Date, seeking to

19

extend the discovery cut-off date for ninety (90) days, till July

20

15, 2011, in order to conduct discovery relating to defendant’s

21

newly asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaim.

22

Plaintiff opposed

On March 3, 2011, the court granted defendant’s

Defendant filed its First Amended Answer and
On March 15, 2011, plaintiff

Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be

23

modified “only for good cause.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

24

cause requirement of Rule 16 primarily considers the diligence of

25

the party seeking the amendment to the pretrial scheduling order.

26

The pretrial scheduling order can only be modified “if it cannot

27

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

28
2

The good

1

extension.”

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

2

609 (9th Cir. 1992)

3

When evaluating whether a party was diligent, the Ninth

4

Circuit has determined that “the focus of the inquiry is upon the

5

moving party’s reasons for modification.”

6

moving party may establish good cause by showing “(1) that [he or

7

she] was diligent in assisting the court in creating a workable

8

Rule 16 order; (2) that [his or her] noncompliance with a Rule 16

9

deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding [his or her]

Id. at 610.

The

10

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters

11

which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at

12

the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that [he

13

or she] was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order,

14

once it became apparent that [he or she] could not comply with

15

the order.”

16

Cal. 1999)(citations omitted).

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D.

17

In this case, plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to

18

reopen discovery and to extend the discovery deadlines to conduct

19

additional discovery relating to defendant’s newly asserted

20

affirmative defenses and counterclaim.

21

dispute that plaintiff has been diligent in assisting the court

22

in creating a workable Rule 16 order.

23

raised the affirmative defenses and counterclaim at issue in the

24

First Amended Answer filed on March 7, 2011.

25

extend discovery on March 15, 2011.

26

that plaintiff was diligent in discovering requesting amendment

27

to the PSO under the circumstances of this case.

28
3

First, there is no

Second, defendant only

Plaintiff moved to

As such, the court concludes

1

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

2

All discovery shall be completed by July 15, 2011.

3

designations and disclosures shall be made no later September 16,

4

2011.

5

7, 2011.

6

January 13, 2012.

7
8

Expert

Supplemental expert disclosures shall be made by October
All dispositive motions shall be heard no later than
All other dates remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 2, 2011

9
10
11

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4