AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Integral Consulting, Inc. et al

Filing 163

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 146 Motion to Continue; denying 151 Motion to Shorten Time. Discovery due by 1/23/2015. Pretrial Conference set for 4/17/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Samuel Conti. J ury Trial set for 4/27/2015 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Samuel Conti for an estimated 2 weeks. Jury Selection set for 4/17/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Samuel Conti. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

AMEC ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTEGRAL CONSULTING, INC.;
EDWARD P. CONTI; and MATTHEW
HILLYARD,
Defendants.

) Case No. CV 12-01735 SC
)
) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO
) SHORTEN TIME AND CONTINUE TRIAL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18
19

Now before the Court are two motions regarding scheduling in

20

this case: (1) Plaintiff AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.'s

21

("AMEC") administrative motion to continue the trial and other

22

pretrial deadlines (ECF No. 146), and (2) AMEC's motion to shorten

23

time to hear its motion to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 148).

24

Defendant Integral Consulting, Inc. ("Integral") has opposed both

25

motions (ECF Nos. 146, 158), and Defendants Edward Conti and

26

Matthew Hillyard have joined those oppositions (ECF Nos. 157, 161).

27

For the reasons set forth below, AMEC's motion to continue the

28

trial and extend other pretrial deadlines is GRANTED, and AMEC's

1

motion to shorten time to hear its motion to file an amended

2

complaint is DENIED.

3

At the outset, Integral argues that AMEC's motion to continue
administrative motion.

6

discovery is not a "routine administrative matter," as described in

7

Civil Local Rule 7-11.

8

United States District Court

the trial and extend discovery is not properly brought as an

5

For the Northern District of California

4

asserts that AMEC's motion should have been brought as a motion to

9

change time under Rule 6-3.

10

Integral argues that the extension of
ECF No. 146 at 3.

Instead, Integral

Integral cites no authority in support of its position, but

11

Judge Alsup considered the issue recently.

12

motion to extend fact discovery and modify a scheduling order

13

sought "relief governed by the federal rules [of civil procedure]"

14

and was therefore "erroneously styled . . . as an administrative

15

motion."

16

00567 WHA, 2014 WL 1647529, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2014).

17

However, other judges in this District have considered such motions

18

as administrative motions without addressing whether they are

19

properly brought as such.

20

Co. of Am., C 12-1430 CW, 2013 WL 1832641, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 1,

21

2013); Ho v. Ernst & Young LLP, C05-04867 JF, 2007 WL 2070216, at

22

*1-2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2007).

23

Judge Alsup held that a

Raymat Materials, Inc. v. A & C Catalysts, Inc., C 13-

See, e.g., Yanting Zhang v. Safeco Ins.

The Court agrees with Judge Alsup; AMEC's first motion should

24

have been brought as a motion to change time under Rule 6-3.

25

However, the rules for motions to change time and administrative

26

motions are virtually identical: both limit the motion and

27

opposition to five pages and require the opposition to be filed

28

within four days.

Compare Civ. L.R. 6-3 with Civ. L.R. 7-11.
2

deny, modify the requested time change or schedule the matter for

3

additional briefing or a hearing."

4

the court may not order additional briefing or a hearing on an

5

administrative motion.

6

specifies that "[u]nless otherwise ordered, a Motion for

7

Administrative Relief is deemed submitted for immediate

8

United States District Court

Integral points out that Rule 6-3 permits the Court to "grant,

2

For the Northern District of California

1

determination without hearing on the day after the opposition is

9

due" (emphasis added).

Integral seems to suggest that

ECF No. 146 at 3.

However, Rule 7-11

It is not clear to the Court that there is

10

any meaningful difference; in fact the text of Rule 7-11 indicates

11

that the Court could order additional briefing or a hearing on an

12

administrative motion as well.

13

that additional briefing or a hearing is unnecessary.

14

the Court will consider AMEC's motion even though it should have

15

been brought as a motion to change time. 1

Regardless, the Court determines
Accordingly,

AMEC alleges that an extension of discovery is necessary

16
17

because Integral has repeatedly resisted AMEC's disclosure requests

18

and because AMEC wishes to amend its complaint to add a new

19

defendant.

20

discovery related to the new defendant.

21

has been responsive to AMEC's discovery requests but that AMEC has

22

simply not found the evidence it wants.

23

the Court has not determined the merit of AMEC's motion to amend

24

its complaint to add a new defendant.

25

of AMEC's motion to shorten time; the motion to amend the complaint

26

1

27
28

AMEC may therefore require additional time to conduct
Integral asserts that it
At this point, however,
That motion is the subject

This is the approach Judge Alsup took as well. See Raymat
Materials, 2014 WL 1647529, at *6. As in Raymat Materials, "[b]oth
sides would benefit from the expeditious resolution of this motion
so that they can move forward with their trial preparation." Id.

3

1

is scheduled to be heard on November 14, two days after the current

2

close of discovery on November 12.
The Court finds that good cause exists to extend the discovery

3

likely lies with both parties.

6

extending the discovery deadline commensurate with the new trial

7

date will help resolve Integral's transgressions without inflicting

8

United States District Court

deadline.

5

For the Northern District of California

4

Blame for the torturous discovery process in this case

undue prejudice.

9

motion to amend the complaint on the normal schedule.

However, the Court finds that

It will also permit the Court to resolve the
If the Court

10

finds that AMEC has good cause to amend its complaint to add a new

11

defendant, that alone will constitute good cause to extend

12

discovery.

13

discovery will be required and any prejudicial effect on Integral

14

will be minimal.

15

discovery in this case, recently granted AMEC's request for

16

Integral to apply additional search terms to identify responsive

17

data.

18

to comply with that order and AMEC to review any newly discovered

19

responsive documents. Accordingly, AMEC's motion to continue the

20

trial date and extend all other pretrial deadlines is GRANTED, but

21

AMEC's motion to shorten time is DENIED.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

If the Court decides otherwise, little additional
Additionally, Judge Cousins, who is handling

ECF No. 162.

More time for discovery will permit Integral

4

1

It is hereby ORDERED that:

2

1.

Trial in this matter is continued to April 27, 2015.

3

2.

All discovery shall be completed and all depositions
taken by January 23, 2015.

4
5

3.

The last hearing date for motions, to be noticed in
20, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel should contact the

8

United States District Court

accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, is Friday, February

7
For the Northern District of California

6

courtroom deputy clerk for an available date prior to

9

noticing any motions for hearing.

10

4.

Friday, April 17, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.

11
12

A pretrial conference shall be held before the court on

5.

All other deadlines and requirements set in the Court's

13

May 30, 2014 status conference order, ECF No. 102, remain

14

unchanged.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: October 10, 2014

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5