Baker v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Diego et al

Filing 49

ORDER Granting in part Defendants' 46 Ex Parte Application to Continue Expert Discovery Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 4/5/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No.: 14CV800-JM(JMA)

MICHELE BAKER,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINES

v.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE
OF SAN DIEGO; ROMAN CATHOLIC
ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN DIEGO dba
CATHEDRAL CATHOLIC HIGH
SCHOOL; CATHEDRAL CATHOLIC
HIGH SCHOOL,
Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On March 30, 2016, two days before the parties’ deadline to designate their
respective experts in writing, Defendants filed an ex parte application requesting the
Court continue this deadline and the others relating to expert discovery for a period of no
less than forty-five days. Doc. No. 46. Defendants seek the continuance on the basis they
intend to file a motion for summary judgment, for which they have obtained a hearing
date of May 9, 2016, and they would prefer not to bear the burden and expense of
retaining experts, having them prepare reports, and participating in other expert discovery
until Defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been heard. Id. The motion for

28
1
14CV800-JM(JMA)

1

summary judgment is reported to be predicated on testimony given by Plaintiff during her

2

deposition. Id. Plaintiff is amenable to a fifteen day continuance of the expert discovery

3

deadlines but otherwise opposes Defendants’ ex parte application. Doc. No. 47.

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) allows a schedule to be modified for good cause and with

5

a judge's consent. Rule 16(b)' s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence

6

of the party seeking the amendment. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations Inc.,

7

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992); See also Rich v. Schrader (S.D. Cal. 2013) 2013 WL

8

3710806 at 2. Thus, in order to demonstrate good cause, a party must demonstrate its

9

diligence in taking discovery and diligence in propounding or noticing the particular

10

outstanding discovery, and explain why it could not conduct the particular discovery

11

before the discovery cut off date. Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the

12

party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the

13

focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification.

14

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

15

Defendants’ ex parte application fails to set forth good cause to continue all of the

16

expert discovery deadlines by 45 days. Defendants have made no showing as to why

17

Plaintiff’s testimony could not have been obtained earlier, given that discovery has been

18

open since September 2015, or offered any explanation as to why either their ex parte

19

application or their motion for summary judgment could not be filed earlier, given that

20

Plaintiff’s deposition was concluded on February 15, 2016. Decl. of Michael

21

Fostakowsky, ¶ 9.

22

Furthermore, such a continuance would necessitate a similar continuance of all

23

subsequent case management dates, including a continuance of the trial date, which is

24

currently set for January 9, 2017. This case has been pending for some time and will be

25

nearly three years old by then. The Court, thus, is not inclined to disturb the trial date

26

without a strong showing of good cause, which has not been made.

27

Although good cause has not been demonstrated to continue all the expert

28

discovery deadlines, and consequently the remaining case management deadlines by 45
2
14CV800-JM(JMA)

1

days, the Court agrees it is prudent for the parties to avoid the expense of expert

2

discovery while Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending, to the extent that

3

can be accomplished without delaying the trial and other case management dates. The

4

Court, therefore, GRANTS Defendants’ ex parte application in part and resets the expert

5

discovery dates as follows:

6

The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing and comply with the

7

disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

8

by June 10, 2016.

9

The deadlines for exchange of rebuttal experts and for the parties to supplement

10

expert disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

26(a)(2)(D) are continued to June 24, 2016.

12

All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 15, 2016.

13

The parties should not construe the Court’s continuance of these deadlines as a

14

guarantee they will have a ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by a date

15

certain. It is quite possible the outcome of that motion will not be known until the parties

16

have undertaken expert discovery.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 5, 2016

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
14CV800-JM(JMA)