Enea v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 61 MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 11/12/2019. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GIORGIO ENEA,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
Re: Dkt. No. 61

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-02792-HSG

12
Plaintiff Giorgio Enea moved to extend the deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order. Dkt.

13
14

No. 61 (“Mot.”). Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

15

motion on November 8, 2019, Dkt. No. 64, and issues this short order explaining its reasoning for

16

the record.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for

19

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’

20

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

21

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16

22

Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983 amendment) (noting court may modify schedule “if it cannot

23

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension”). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s

24

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.;

25

see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the moving

26

party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends, and the motion should be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal.

27

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Whether or not to

28

reopen discovery is in the discretion of the district court: the district court has “wide latitude in

1
2

controlling discovery.” United States v. Reliance Ins. Co., 799 F.2d 1382, 1387 (9th Cir. 1986).
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed his motion three days before discovery closed, seeking to extend the

3
4

discovery deadline by approximately seven months, and the subsequent deadlines by

5

approximately four to five months. See generally Mot. According to Plaintiff, this extension is

6

necessary because MBUSA purportedly disclosed that discovery was in the possession of its

7

parent company, Daimler AG. Id. at 2. Because Daimler AG is a foreign corporation, Plaintiff

8

claims that it would take “approximately 3 months just to perfect service through the Hague

9

Convention.” Id. at 3.
The Court finds Plaintiff fails to show good cause to extend the deadlines in the Court’s

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Scheduling Order. While Plaintiff tries to shift the blame onto Defendant for refusing to accept

12

service on behalf of Daimler AG (which is not a Defendant in this action), Plaintiff never raised

13

the possibility of seeking discovery from Daimler AG until October 25, 2019, two weeks before

14

the discovery deadline. Dkt. No. 63-1, Declaration of Alfredo W. Amoedo ¶ 10. And Plaintiff, by

15

his own admission, discovered that Defendant purchases replacement sunroofs “and/or their

16

component parts from Daimler AG” on July 23, 2019. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff could have sought to

17

subpoena Daimler AG in July, or could have raised this discovery issue with the Court at that

18

time. Instead, he waited over three months to request an extension just three days before the

19

discovery deadline. Plaintiff clearly was not diligent in seeking to extend the deadlines.

20

III.

CONCLUSION

21

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to extend deadlines.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: 11/12/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2