Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company v. California Finest Oil et al

Filing 31

ORDER Denying 30 Parties' Joint Motion/Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut-Off and Related Pretrial Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 2/6/2013. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING
COMPANY,

12
Plaintiff,
13

v.

14

CALIFORNIA FINEST OIL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 12-CV-1312-GPC (WVG)
ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ JOINT
MOTION/STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND RELATED
PRETRIAL DEADLINES
[DOC. NO. 30]

16
Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion/Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut-Off and
17
Related Pretrial Deadlines. (Doc. No. 30.) The parties request that the Court extend the discovery cut-off
18
and pretrial dates by sixty days to allow the parties to complete discovery in order to evaluate this case for
19
settlement and prepare for trial. Id. at 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Joint Motion is DENIED.
20
I. LEGAL STANDARD
21
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides a stringent standard whereby the party who seeks to
22
amend the Court’s scheduling order must show “good cause” why the Court should set aside or extend a
23
discovery deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (emphasis added). Under Rule 16(b)’s good cause
24
standard, the Court’s primary focus is on the movant’s diligence in seeking the amendment. Johnson v.
25
Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause” exists if a party can prove that
26
the schedule “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. (citing
27
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). “If the party seeking modification was
28
not diligent in his or her pretrial preparations, the inquiry should end there and the measure of relief sought
1

12CV1312

1

from the Court should not be granted.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

2

2002).

3

II. PARTIES HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW “GOOD CAUSE”

4

According to this Court’s Chambers Rules, the Joint Motion requesting an extension of the discovery

5

schedule, “shall include a declaration from counsel of record detailing the steps taken to comply with the

6

dates and deadlines set in the order, and the specific reasons why deadlines cannot be met.” (Judge Gallo’s

7

Chambers Rules, Rule III) (emphasis added). The instant Joint Motion lacks both a showing of good cause

8

and any effort to convince the Court that the parties have acted diligently, as required by Rule 16. Fed. R.

9

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Joint Motion did not include any record detailing steps taken to comply with the dates

10

and deadlines set in the Scheduling Order.

11

While the Court appreciates that the parties have worked together to form a consensus on an

12

amended time frame for discovery dates, the parties must understand that the Court makes the ultimate

13

determination about the schedule. The Court does not find good cause to extend the dates in this case. The

14

unavailability of Plaintiff’s counsel for two weeks in February, 2013, is not explained nor justified. Further,

15

the fact and expert discovery deadlines do not expire for more than two and six months, respectively. The

16

Court is at a loss to understand how Plaintiff’s counsel’s unavailability for two weeks necessitates a sixty

17

day extension at this time of all discovery and pretrial deadlines. The Court is not inclined to continue dates

18

issued in its Scheduling Order without good cause, or the required showing of due diligence to justify the

19

extension of discovery dates. Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion to adhere to the dates provided

20

in the November 20, 2012, Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 20.)

21

IV. CONCLUSION

22

For the reasons outlined above, this Court hereby DENIES the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend

23

Discovery Cut-Off and Related Pretrial Deadlines. (Doc. No. 30.) The parties shall adhere to the dates set

24

forth in this Court’s November 20, 2012, Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 20.)

25

//

26
27

//

28

//
2

12CV1312

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

DATED: February 6, 2013

4
5
6
Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

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

12CV1312