Aguilar v. Smart Balance, Inc. et al
Filing
72
ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 69 Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. Good cause has not been shown by Defendants to compel Plaintiff's deposition or supplemental responses and their requests are Denied. The May 9, 2014 deadline for fact discovery is hereby Vacated. The parties are ordered to contact Judge Skomal's chambers within three (3) court days of receiving a ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Further Amend the Second Amended Complaint in order to schedule a telephonic Status Conference regarding case management. The telephonic status conference presently scheduled for April 18, 2014is also Vacated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 3/25/2014. (rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
MARIA AGUILAR, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
15
16
BOULDER BRANDS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation (formerly known as Smart
Balance, Inc.) and GFA BRANDS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[ECF No. 69.]
Defendant.
I.
19
20
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE
SCHEDULING ORDER
v.
17
18
12-CV-1862-BTM (BGS)
Plaintiff,
13
14
Civil
No.
INTRODUCTION
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Court’s October 11, 2013
Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff requests the Court vacate the fact discovery deadline
until the District Judge rules on her pending Motion for Leave to Further Amend the Proposed
Second Amended Complaint and to Substitute a New Proposed Class Representative. In the
alternative, Plaintiff asks for a 60-day extension of the fact discovery deadline. (Id. at 5.) The
current Scheduling Order requires all fact discovery to be completed by May 9, 2014. (ECF. No.
38.)
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, which was taken under submission by the Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz on
1
12cv1862-BTM
1
January 27, 2014. (ECF. No. 43.) On January 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class
2
Certification. (ECF No. 52.) Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Class Certification Proceedings
3
and Class Discovery Pending Determination of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
4
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 54.) On February 5, 2014, Judge Moskowitz granted
5
Defendants’ Motion to Stay Class Certification and Class Discovery and instructed Plaintiff to
6
“seek a new hearing date and refile her motion to certify a class after the Court rules on her
7
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.” (ECF No. 63.)
On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Further Amend the Proposed
8
9
Second Amended Complaint and to Substitute a New Proposed Class Representative. (ECF No.
10
62.) The District Court took the Motion for Leave to Further Amend and to Substitute a New
11
Proposed Class Representative under submission on March 7, 2014. (ECF No. 67.)
12
III.
13
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff is requesting the court vacate the fact discovery deadline until after a decision on
14
her pending motion to amend and to substitute a new proposed class representative. Plaintiff
15
asserts that although the parties have been diligent, unforseen developments require a
16
modification of the fact discovery deadline. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that after the October
17
11, 2013 Scheduling Order issued, she and her son suffered health issues which have caused her
18
to seek to withdraw as class representative. Plaintiff argues it would be wasteful for the parties
19
to continue with fact discovery when they do not know if a new class representative will be
20
approved by the district court. Moreover, Plaintiff contends she should not be noticed for a
21
deposition if the district court will ultimately allow a new class representative. Plaintiff also
22
argues she would be prejudiced by having a limited time frame for merits discovery when there
23
is no ruling yet on file from the district court as to the scope of the proposed class. Plaintiff
24
urges the court to either vacate the current fact discovery deadline, or in the alternative, continue
25
the deadline for 60 days to allow for the resolution of any issues that may arise in the event
26
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint and substitute a new class representative.
27
28
Defendants argue that while they have avidly pursued discovery, Plaintiff, however, has
not been diligent in her pursuit of fact discovery. Specifically, they contend: (1) Plaintiff agreed
2
12cv1862-BTM
1
on December 17, 2013, to provide them with supplemental interrogatory responses before the
2
end of 2013, but no supplemental responses have yet been provided; and (2) although Plaintiff’s
3
deposition was scheduled for January 29, 2014, she did not inform Defendants until January 21,
4
2014, that she intended to file a motion to withdraw from the case and no longer intended to
5
appear for her deposition.1 Defendants also contend that they are poised to continue with the
6
discovery deadlines currently in place and ask the Court to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and
7
supplemental document production.
8
9
Once a scheduling order has been filed pursuant to Rule 16, the “schedule may be
modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule
10
16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the
11
amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met
12
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
13
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes
14
(1983 amendment)).
15
Defendants focus their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on Plaintiff’s failures to respond to
16
written discovery and to appear for deposition to demonstrate lack of diligence, however,
17
Defendants’ opposition brief also shines light on Defendants’ own failure to bring these
18
problems to the Court’s attention in a timely and diligent fashion. The Court’s chambers rules
19
require the parties to bring discovery disputes to the Court’s attention after meeting and
20
conferring in-person and within no more than 30 days after the dispute arises. Parties that fail to
21
meet this deadline are prohibited from filing a motion to compel unless good cause is shown.
22
See Judge Skomal’s Local Chambers Rules at http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules. Defendants
23
attempt to explain their failure to comply with the Court’s deadline for bringing discovery
24
disputes by stating in a footnote that they did not preserve their right to bring a motion to compel
25
because they believed the case to be moot. The Court’s chambers rules specifically alert the
26
parties that “[c]ounsel may not stop conducting other discovery due to a dispute.” Regardless of
27
28
1
Defendants contend Plaintiff’s counsel knew on January 15, 2014, Ms. Aguilar no
longer wished to serve as named plaintiff in this case.
3
12cv1862-BTM
1
Defendants’ position as to whether a case or controversy exists in light of Plaintiff’s desire to
2
withdraw before class certification, they did not follow the Court’s rules requiring a discovery
3
dispute be brought to the Court’s attention for adjudication or for preservation within 30 days of
4
its inception. Good cause has not been shown by Defendants to compel Plaintiff’s deposition or
5
supplemental responses and their requests are DENIED.
6
As to Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds good cause to modify the Scheduling Order has
7
been established. In her reply brief, Plaintiff underscores the argument that it would be a waste
8
of the parties’ resources to pursue merits-based discovery because the district court may deny
9
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and to substitute a new class representative; and in the
10
event of a denial, Plaintiff will have to request that the case be voluntarily dismissed and then
11
file a new complaint on behalf of the proposed class representative, Elizabeth Mitchell. The
12
Court agrees and finds: (1) the current fact discovery deadline cannot be reasonably met in light
13
of the pending Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; and (2) is in keeping with
14
Judge Moskowitz’s Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Class Certification. (See ECF
15
No. 63.)
16
IV. CONCLUSION
17
As explained above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Amended Scheduling
18
Order. The May 9, 2014 deadline for fact discovery is HEREBY VACATED. The parties are
19
ordered to contact Judge Skomal’s chambers at (619) 557-2993 within three (3) court days of
20
receiving a ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Further Amend the Second Amended
21
Complaint in order to schedule a telephonic Status Conference regarding case management. The
22
telephonic status conference presently scheduled for April 18, 2014 with Judge Skomal is ALSO
23
VACATED.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 25, 2014
26
27
28
Hon. Bernard G. Skomal
U.S. Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
4
12cv1862-BTM
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?