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

Filing 36

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/7/18 Extending the fact discovery deadline by an additional forty-five days. (Kaminski, H)

1 BRITTANY RUPLEY HAEFELE (Bar No. 276208)
WILLIAM L. PORTER (Bar No. 133968)
2 PORTER LAW GROUP, INC.
7801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 101
3 Sacramento, California 95826
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
5 Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
6 NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC
7 RONALD W. HOPKINS (Bar No. 100895)
CHRISTIAN J. GASCOU (Bar No. 209957)
8 GASCOU HOPKINS LLP
9696 Culver Boulevard, Suite 302
9 Culver City, California 90232
Telephone: [phone]
10 Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
11 Email: [e-mail]
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

15
16

ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation,

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,
v.

Defendants.

22

24
25
26
27
28

Ex Parte Motion for Request to Modify
Pretrial Order By Stipulation to Extend Fact
Discovery By An Additional Forty-Five Days

NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

21

23

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

NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California
Corporation,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00552-KJM-CKD
(Administratively and consolidated with case
2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH)

Plaintiff,
v.
ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
200, inclusive
Defendants.

-1STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER

1

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

2 Defendant, NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC (hereinafter Defendant),
3
4
5
6

and Plaintiff, ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter Plaintiff) by and
through the undersigned counsel, hereby jointly stipulate and request this Court to issue an Order
to modify the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 3) (hereinafter “Initial Pretrial

7 Scheduling Order” or “Pretrial Order”) for case 2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH, by extending the
8 dates for conclusion of fact discovery by an additional forty-five days from the current fact
9 discovery deadline of June 19, 2018—to August 3, 2018, with all other deadlines to remain as
10
11

deadlines to remain as governed by the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order.
The Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order allocated 365 days for fact discovery until

12
13
14

December 22, 2017 (ECF No. 3). Discovery including initial Rule 26(f) disclosures was then
placed on hold pending ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 23),

15 which was denied on September 28, 2017. Shortly after denial of the motion on October 16,
16 2017, the court granted a joint request to extend fact discovery by 120 days to April 20, 2018
17 (ECF No. 28) and by 60 days to June 19, 2018 (ECF No. 31). However, even with these
18
19
20
21

modifications, the total time period for fact discovery on this complex construction dispute has
been slightly less than 9 months, in place of the original 365 days allocated to discovery.
The parties have to date since October diligently engaged in discovery consisting of

22 the exchange of several rounds of very lengthy written discovery, including amended and
23 supplemental responses after meet and confers, and the exchange of several binders of
24 documents concerning the construction project obtained both from the parties and from third
25 parties through subpoena.
26
27
28

The last of the responses to document production requests was accomplished in early
March. Since that exchange and in April and May of 2018, the parties have exchanged additional
lengthy rounds of written discovery and produced thousands of pages of additional documents

-2STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER

1 pursuant to follow-up requests. Following the exchange of the extensive written discovery, the
2 parties have now identified numerous witnesses for deposition—including party-affiliated PMQ
3
4
5
6

witnesses and other non-party witnesses. After conferring on deposition scheduling, the parties
recognize that it will be extremely difficult to schedule and conclude all of the necessary PMQ
and third party witness depositions by June 19, 2018—which include former employees of the

7 parties—plus any attendant discovery that may be required as a result of the depositions. In
8 particular, the availability of one party’s PMQ witness has been limited due to his appearance as
9 a party representative at a lengthy arbitration, and their availability of the other party’s PMQ has
10
11

been limited because he will be out of the country until after the current discovery cut-off. The
parties respectfully submit that they have been dutiful in conducting extensive discovery to date

12
13
14

during a compressed time period—and would greatly appreciate an additional forty-five day
extension to conclude fact discovery in an orderly manner.
FRCP 16(b)(4) allows a court to modify a scheduling order upon a showing of “good

15

16 cause.” According to the Ninth Circuit Court, the “good cause” standard required is primarily
17 concerned with the diligence taken by the party seeking the extension. Johnson v. Mammoth
18
19
20
21

Recreations, Inc, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A court may modify the scheduling order
should the given deadlines not be reasonably able to be met, despite diligent efforts. Jackson v.
Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. CA 1999) issues its.
This Stipulated Request to Modify the Pretrial Order is supported by good cause.

22

23 The parties hereby respectfully request that this Court modify the Pretrial Order by extending the
24 fact discovery deadline by an additional forty-five days.
25 This would result in the following new deadlines:
26
27
28

Fact Discovery: August 3, 2018.
All other deadlines in the Pretrial Order remain unchanged.
//

-3STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER

1

GASCOU HOPKINS LLP

2 Dated: May 23, 2018
3

By: _________/Ronald Hopkins/________
RONALD W. HOPKINS

4

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

5

ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY

6
7
8 Dated: May 23, 2018

PORTER LAW GROUP, INC.

9
10
11

By: _______/Brittany Rupley Haefe/____

12
13
BRITTANY RUPLEY HAEFELE

14
15

Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Claimant

16

NEW PARADIGM PROPERTY

17

MANAGEMENT, LLC

18
19

ORDER

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: June 7, 2018
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4STIPULATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE PRETRIAL ORDER