Lucore et al v. Safeco Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Continue. All dates set in the 24 Second Amended Scheduling Order shall remain as set. SO ORDERED by Judge William V. Gallo on March 30, 2017.(ajf)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN LUCORE et al., Case No.: 16-CV-670-WVG Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al., [Doc. No. 25.] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 For the third time, the parties have asked the Court to continue discovery-related 19 deadlines in this case. On December 14, 2016, the parties asked for a 2-month extension 20 of fact and expert discovery deadlines and related dates. [Doc. No. 19.] Then on February 21 2, 2017, they asked for another 6-week extension of the same deadlines. [Doc. No. 23.] 22 With respect to discovery extensions, the Court’s Chambers Rules state: “The Court 23 disfavors continuances, but is amenable to such requests if good cause is shown. Good 24 cause includes, among other things, a showing that the parties have been diligent and have 25 not been dilatory.” 26 Cumulatively, the three Scheduling Orders in this case have allowed 9 months for 27 fact discovery, which is longer than ordinarily afforded other non-complex cases. The 28 Court accommodated the parties’ past requests despite making explicit in its Chambers 1 16-CV-670-WVG 1 Rules that continuances are disfavored. The Court also expected the parties would 2 conclude the discovery process and would not make additional requests. Not only is this 3 case not complex, it is quite straightforward and should not have required as much time as 4 the Court has granted. Nine months to complete discovery should have been sufficient. 5 Given the nature of the case, the length of time granted for discovery, and in light of 6 the two prior extensions the Court granted, the parties have not been diligent in completing 7 whatever discovery is left to be done. Deadlines have a purpose and concentrate the mind 8 on the task at hand. It is time for the parties to focus on concluding what discovery remains 9 in the time that remains in this non-complex case. Accordingly, good cause does not exist, 10 and the parties’ request is DENIED.1 All dates in the Second Amended Scheduling Order 11 shall remain as set. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: March 30, 2017 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court understands the parties’ request is also based, in part, on conflicts with other matters. However, the Court has the discretion and right to manage its calendar. As the State courts have exercised their discretion and have denied requests to alter hearings before them, this Court does the same. 2 16-CV-670-WVG

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?