Tapias v. Mallet and Company, Inc.

Filing 47

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granting 44 Revised Ex Parte Application. Law and Motions cutoff date 12/13/2017. Pretrial documents filed by 1/10/2018. Motion in limine/objections to evidence filed by 1/17/18; Replies due by 1/31/2 018. Responses due by 1/24/2018. Jury Selection set for 2/26/2018 08:30 AM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Jury Trial set for 2/26/2018 08:30 AM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. Pretrial Conference set for 2/14/2018 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

OAKLAND DIVISION

9
10
11
12

LUCIA TAPIAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MALLET AND COMPANY, INC., and

13 DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
14

Case No: C 16-1104 SBA
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S REVISED EX
PARTE APPLICATION
Dkt. 44

Defendants.

15
16

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Revised Ex Parte Application to

17

Continue Hearing Date for Motion for Summary Judgment, Trial Date, and Related Dates.

18

Dkt. 44. Defendant seeks leave to take Plaintiff’s deposition beyond the discovery cut-off

19

date of July 12, 2017, and to correspondingly continue the dates for the law and motion cut-

20

off, pretrial conference, trial and related filing deadlines by approximately three to four

21

months. Plaintiff opposes the request.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that deadlines established in a case

23

management order may “be modified only for good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

24

“Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

25

party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609

26

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily

27

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.; see also Coleman v.

28

Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000).

1

The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to justify the proposed

2

modifications to the pretrial schedule. To comport with the law and motion cut-off date of

3

September 13, 2017, Defendant was required to have filed its dispositive motion by no later

4

than August 9, 2017. Understandably, Defendant desires to take Plaintiff’s deposition prior

5

to moving for summary judgment. However, it was not possible for Defendant to schedule

6

Plaintiff’s deposition sufficiently in advance of the aforementioned filing deadline due to

7

Plaintiff’s delays in providing supplemental responses to Defendant’s second set of

8

interrogatories. In addition, Plaintiff was unavailable for deposition in July because her

9

attorney was on vacation for almost the entire month.1 Although Defendant could have

10

pursued discovery from Plaintiff more expeditiously, the Court finds that, on balance,

11

Defendant has shown good cause for the requested extensions. Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

Defendant’s ex parte application is GRANTED.

14

2.

The pretrial scheduling order is modified as follows:
a.

15
16

Fact discovery is closed, except that Defendant shall have until

September 29, 2017, to depose Plaintiff.

17

b.

The law and motion cut-off date is December 13, 2017.

18

c.

Pretrial documents shall be filed by January 10, 2018.

19

d.

Motion in limine/objections to evidence shall be filed by January 17,

20

2018; oppositions shall be filed by January 24, 2018; and replies shall be filed by January

21

31, 2018.
e.

22
23

February 14, 2018.
f.

24
25

The pretrial conference is continued from November 8, 2017, to
The trial date is continued from November 13, 2017, to February 26,

Plaintiff is incorrect that Defendant should have filed a noticed motion to extend
the pretrial deadlines, rather than an Ex Parte Application. Dkt. 46 at 3. As the Court
clearly indicated in its prior Order denying Defendant’s first Ex Parte Application, requests
27 for “enlargement or shortening of time that alters an event or deadline already fixed by
Court order” are governed by Local Rule 6. Dkt. 43. A motion under Local Rule 6 is not a
28 noticed motion. See Civ. L.R. 6-3, 7-1(a)(3).
1

26

-2-

1
2
3
4
5

2018.
3.

The Clerk shall issue a Second Amended Order for Pretrial Preparation

memorializing the above dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/6/17

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Senior United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-