Cavner et al v. Airborne Systems North America of CA, Inc. et al
Filing
66
ORDER denying without prejudice #65 Joint Motion to Continue Deadline for Fact Discovery and Later Deadlines. The parties may renew this motion, but only after complying with the requirements of due diligence as set for in this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal on 1/10/17. (kas)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEVE CAVNER and BETH CAVNER,
Case No.: 15cv2656 LAB (BGS)
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR
FACT DISCOVERY AND LATER
DEADLINES
AIRBORNE SYSTEMS NORTH
AMERICA OF CA, INC. et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
[ECF No. 65]
17
18
I.
Background
19
The parties have filed a second Joint Motion to Continue the Deadline for Fact
20
Discovery and Later Deadlines. (ECF No. 65.) This case was filed on November 25,
21
2015 and the first scheduling order issued on February 12, 2016. As part of that order,
22
fact discovery was to be completed by August 12, 2016. However, on June 22, 2016, the
23
parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue Deadline for Fact Discovery and Later Deadlines
24
for 180 days. The primary basis for the parties’ good cause was the addition of other
25
parties which necessarily required additional discovery. In that this was the first request
26
to continue and the stated reasons established good cause, the Court granted the parties’
27
request for a 180-day extension of all deadlines without having the parties first detail
28
1
15cv2656 LAB (BGS)
1
what discovery had been done to date. Now the parties seek another extension of fact
2
discovery as well as extensions for other deadlines for an additional 90 days.
3
4
II.
Analysis
In general, the dates and times set in the scheduling order will not be modified
5
except for good cause shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (stating “A schedule may be
6
modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). The Ninth Circuit has
7
explained that Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard is focused on the diligence of the party
8
seeking the amendment and has stated the inquiry as follows: “[t]he district court may
9
modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the
10
party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609
11
(9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)).
12
In the present case, the parties have had from February 12, 2016 to the present to
13
conduct discovery. In fact, the current fact discovery deadline is February 8, 2017,
14
providing the parties almost a full year to complete discovery. The Court has already
15
granted an extension of 180 days. This second request asking for an additional 90 days,
16
with the caveat to request more extensions of the schedule, will require a detailed due
17
diligence proffer before the Court will consider granting a limited extension of fact
18
discovery. The parties are to provide the Court with a detailed account of what discovery
19
has been done, giving the dates corresponding to the specific discovery item (i.e., when
20
the discovery was requested and when was it produced). Further, they are to provide an
21
account of what remaining discovery has yet to be done, and explain why using due
22
diligence this remaining discovery could not be accomplished within the one year time
23
frame.
24
By way of example, in Adam Levine’s declaration, paragraphs 5-9, he summarizes
25
written discovery propounded on July 18-19, 2016. (ECF No. 65-1.) The declarant fails
26
to detail why this discovery was not done sooner. Nor does the declarant detail when it
27
was received, reviewed and how it impacts particular discovery which is outstanding. In
28
paragraph 12 the declarant states Rule 30(b)(6) depositions have been noticed. The
2
15cv2656 LAB (BGS)
1
declarant fails to detail the dates of the notices, as well as why, using due diligence, they
2
were not noticed sooner. Further, for any other outstanding depositions, the parties
3
should provide the same due diligence analysis.
4
The Court, pursuant to the above stated law, will consider extensions of time for
5
conducting specific discovery (as opposed to a general extension for all discovery), and
6
only after the parties have shown that under a due diligence standard they were not able
7
to complete the specific discovery by the extended deadline of February 8, 2017. The
8
Court notes that at the Case Management Conference held on February 12, 2016 the
9
Court refused to bifurcate the discovery as moved by both sides. So any delays for any
10
discovery must be substantiated with a due diligence proffer.
11
It is ordered that the Joint Motion to Continue is denied without prejudice. The
12
parties may renew this motion, but only after complying with the requirements of due
13
diligence as set for in this order.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2017
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15cv2656 LAB (BGS)
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?