Stevenson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DEADLINES. The Court extends the remaining pretrial deadlines, as follows: Non-expert Discovery - August 30, 2013; Designation of Experts - September 20 , 2013; Designation of Rebuttal Experts - October 4, 2013; Expert Discovery - October 25, 2013; Filing of Dispositive Motion(s)- November 8, 2013; Meet and Confer - December 23, 2013. The Status Conference is continued from May 10, 2013 to August 23, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.; the parties shall file a Joint Status Conference no later than August 16, 2013. To the extent the motion seeks a continuance of the pretrial conference and trial dates and the deadline to amend the pleadings, the motion is denied. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 5, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

AARON C. STEVENSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

16

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND
TRIAL DEADLINES

v.

15

17

No. C-11-4950 MMC

/

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion and Motion to Continue Pretrial
and Trial Deadlines, filed March 28, 2013. Defendants have filed opposition. Having read
and considered the parties’ respective written submissions, the Court rules as follows.
Although defendants correctly observe that the instant motion is not properly brought
as a motion for administrative relief, see Civil L. R. 7-11 (providing motion for administrative
relief appropriate for such matters as requests to exceed page limitations or to file
documents under seal), the Court will exercise its discretion to hear the matter in the
manner presented, as defendants not only had but took the opportunity to respond to the
merits of the motion, and, consequently, are not prejudiced by plaintiffs’ failure to correctly
notice the motion.1

27
28

1

Moreover, given plaintiffs filed the motion as an administrative motion, plaintiffs are
precluded from filing a reply to defendants’ opposition. See Civil L.R. 7-11(c).

1

Turning to the merits of the motion, the Court finds that, in light of the timing of the

2

production of the discovery materials covered by the parties’ stipulated protective order,

3

plaintiff has shown good cause exists to extend the remaining pretrial deadlines, albeit not

4

for the full length of time requested by plaintiff. Accordingly, to the extent the motion seeks

5

an order extending the remaining pretrial deadlines, the motion is hereby GRANTED in

6

part, and the Court hereby EXTENDS the remaining pretrial deadlines, as follows:

7

Non-expert Discovery

August 30, 2013

8

Designation of Experts

September 20, 2013

9

Designation of Rebuttal Experts

October 4, 2013

10

Expert Discovery

October 25, 2013

11

Filing of Dispositive Motion(s)

November 8, 2013

12

Meet and Confer

December 23, 2013

13

Further, in light of the above, the Status Conference is hereby CONTINUED from

14

May 10, 2013 to August 23, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.; the parties shall file a Joint Status

15

Conference no later than August 16, 2013.

16

To the extent the motion seeks a continuance of the pretrial conference and trial

17

dates, the motion is hereby DENIED, as sufficient time for completion of discovery and

18

resolution of pretrial motions remains without modification of the pretrial conference and

19

trial dates as presently set.

20

Lastly, the Court considers whether plaintiffs have shown good cause for an

21

extension of the deadline to amend pleadings. Deadlines set out in a pretrial order “may be

22

modified only for good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’

23

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson

24

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause may be

25

found to exist where the moving party shows . . . [1] that it is unable to comply with the

26

scheduling order's deadlines due to matters that could not have reasonably been foreseen

27

at the time of the issuance of the scheduling order, and [2] that it was diligent in seeking an

28

amendment once it became apparent that the party could not comply with the scheduling
2

1

order.” See Kuschner v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 684, 687 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

2

Here, plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing. In particular, plaintiffs have not

3

provided the proposed amended pleading or otherwise sufficiently identified the nature of

4

the new claims they wish to assert,2 nor, consequently, have plaintiffs shown they could

5

not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered those claims earlier. Moreover, plaintiffs

6

have failed to set forth any facts to show they were diligent in seeking to extend the

7

deadline once they assertedly learned they had grounds to move to amend the operative

8

complaint.

9

Accordingly, to the extent the motion seeks an extension of the deadline to amend

10

the pleadings, the motion is hereby DENIED as premature, and without prejudice to

11

plaintiffs’ filing a motion, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2, in which plaintiffs identify both the

12

proposed amendments and any good cause that may exist to extend the deadline to

13

amend the pleadings.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: April 5, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

Although plaintiffs assert they cannot amend until they have satisfied certain claim
presentation requirements under California law, nothing would appear to preclude plaintiffs
from submitting their proposed amended pleading prior to plaintiffs’ having satisfied those
requirements.
3