Anderson et al v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment

Filing 240

ORDER DENYING 238 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 27, 2018. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARC ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 11 Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADJUST CASE SCHEDULE v. SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 238 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is Plaintiffs’ motion to adjust the scheduling order 14 issued in this case. Defendant opposes Plaintiffs’ motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. 16 Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This Court’s scheduling order requires a showing of “very good cause.” (Dkt. 17 No. 216.) The primary inquiry is Plaintiffs’ diligence, although the Court also may consider 18 whether Defendant would be prejudiced by an adjustment to the schedule. See Johnson v. 19 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). If, however, the Court concludes 20 a party has not been diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 21 The Court recognizes that SeaWorld produced a large number of documents in July and 22 August of this year and that Plaintiffs were required to seek relief from Chief Magistrate Judge 23 Spero, who is supervising discovery, before the bulk of SeaWorld’s document production was 24 complete. Plaintiffs also agreed to this schedule when SeaWorld requested additional time to 25 produce the documents, and they may not have been aware of the exact content of the documents 26 they were requesting. However, the Court does not find persuasive Plaintiffs’ argument that they 27 did not have an understanding of the nature of the documents at issue. In addition, Plaintiffs have 28 been aware of the volume of documents at issue based on the meet and confer efforts with 1 De efendant. Th Court con he ncludes that Plaintiffs hav not met th burden to show that good cause P ve heir t e 2 exi to extend the deadlin the Court has set with respect to fact and exp discover ists d nes th pert ry. 3 Accord dingly, the Court DENIE the motion ES n. 4 IT IS SO ORDER S RED. 5 6 7 Da ated: Septem mber 27, 2018 8 ___ __________ ___________ __________ ________ JEF FFREY S. W WHITE Un nited States D District Judg ge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?