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)
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?