Allied World Insurance Company v. New Paradigm Property Management, LLC

Filing 34

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 04/02/18 ORDERING that the fact Discovery deadline is EXTENDED to 6/19/2018. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

BRITTANY RUPLEY HAEFELE (Bar No. 276208) WILLIAM
L. PORTER (Bar No. 133968)
PORTER LAW GROUP, INC.
7801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 101
Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone] Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC
RONALD W. HOPKINS (Bar No. 100895)
CHRISTIAN J. GASCOU (Bar No. 209957)
GASCOU HOPKINS LLP
9696 Culver Boulevard, Suite 302
Culver City, California 90232
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

16
17
18

ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22

v.
NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California
corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.

23
24
25

28

Ex Parte Motion for Request to Modify
Pretrial Order By Stipulation to Extend
Fact Discovery By Sixty Days
Case No. 2:17-cv-00552-KJM-CKD
(Administratively closed and consolidated
with case 2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH)

NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California
corporation,

26
27

Case No. 2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,
v.
ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY,
1
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER

1
2

a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
200, inclusive,
Defendants

3
4

Pursuant to Local Rule 143 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 16(b)(4),

5

Defendant, NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC (hereinafter Defendant), and

6

Plaintiff, ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter Plaintiff) by and through the

7

undersigned counsel, hereby jointly stipulate and request this Court to issue an Order to modify the

8

Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 3) (hereinafter “Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order” or

9

“Pretrial Order”) for case 2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH, by extending the dates for

10

conclusion of fact discovery by an additional sixty days from the current fact discovery deadline

11

of April 20, 2018—to June 19, 2018, with all other deadlines to remain as governed by the Initial

12

Pretrial Scheduling Order.

13

The Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order allocated 365 days for fact discovery until December

14

22, 2017(ECF No. 3.). Discovery including initial Rule 26(f) disclosures was then placed on hold

15

pending ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 23), which was denied on

16

September 28, 2017. Shortly after denial of the motion on October 16, 2017, the court granted a

17

joint request to extend fact discovery by 120 days to April 20, 2018. (ECF No. 28.) However, even

18

with this modification, the total time period for fact discovery on this complex construction dispute

19

has been slightly less than 7 months, in place of the original 365 days allocated to discovery. The

20

parties have to date since October diligently engaged in discovery consisting of the exchange of

21

several rounds of very lengthy written discovery, including amended and supplemental responses

22

after meet and confers, and the exchange of several binders of documents concerning the

23

construction project obtained both from the parties and from third parties

24

through subpoena.

25

The last of the responses to document production requests was accomplished in early

26

March. Following the exchange of the extensive written discovery, the parties have now identified

27

numerous witnesses for deposition—including party-affiliated PMQ witnesses and other non-party

28

witnesses. After conferring on deposition scheduling, the parties recognize that it
2
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER

1

will be extremely difficult to schedule and conclude all of the necessary PMQ and third party

2

witness depositions by April 20, 2018—which include former employees of the parties -- plus any

3

attendant discovery that may be required as a result of the depositions. The parties respectfully

4

submit that they have been dutiful in conducting extensive discovery to date during a compressed

5

time period—and would greatly appreciate an additional sixty-day extension to conclude fact

6

discovery in an orderly manner.

7

FRCP 16(b)(4) allows a court to modify a scheduling order upon a showing of “good cause.”

8

According to the Ninth Circuit Court, the “good cause” standard required is primarily concerned

9

with the diligence taken by the party seeking the extension. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

10

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A court may modify the scheduling order should the given

11

deadlines not be reasonably able to be met, despite diligent efforts. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186

12

F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. CA 1999) issues its

13
14

This Stipulated Request to Modify the Pretrial Order is supported by good cause. The parties

15

hereby respectfully request that this Court modify the Pretrial Order by extending the fact discovery

16

deadline by an additional sixty days.

17

This would result in the following new deadlines:

18

Fact Discovery: June 19, 2018.

19

All other deadlines in the Pretrial Order would remain unchanged.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER

1
2

GASCOU HOPKINS LLP
Dated: March 27, 2018

3

6

/Ronald Hopkins/

RONALD W. HOPKINS
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY

4
5

By:

Dated: March 27, 2018

7

PORTER LAW GROUP, INC.

By:
/Brittany Rupley Haefele/
BRITTANY RUPLEY HAEFELE
Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant
NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC

8
9
10
11

ORDER

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER