Walters v. Target Corp.

Filing 127

ORDER on 114 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute regarding Plaintiff's requests for admissions. Plaintiff's motion to compel responses from Defendant, as presented in this Joint Motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 11/9/18. (Dembin, Mitchell)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES WALTERS, on behalf of
himself and those similarly
situated,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

TARGET CORP.,

16

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-1678-L-MDD
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
REGARDING REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION
[ECF NO. 114]

17
18

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties for determination of a

19

discovery dispute filed on October 12, 2018. (ECF No. 114). The dispute

20

concerns whether Defendant need respond to requests for admission allegedly

21

served untimely under the operative Scheduling Order.

22

The Scheduling Order, in relevant part, provides:

23

All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties no later than
September 18, 2018. “Completed” means that all discovery under
Rules 30-36, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45,1 must be initiated
a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may
be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for
service, notice and response.

24
25
26
27

1
16-cv-1678-L-MDD

1

(ECF No. 66, ¶ 5). It appears undisputed that Plaintiff served Defendant

2

with requests for admission, under Rule 36, Fed. R. Civ. P., on August 21,

3

2018, which carried a due date of September 20, 2018. (ECF No. 114 at 2).1

4

Rule 36(a)(3) requires a response be served to a request for production within

5

30 days after being served with the request.
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to respond arguing that its service

6
7

was only 2 days late, Defendant is not prejudiced and, in the alternative, to

8

extend the scheduling order deadline to allow Defendant to respond. (ECF

9

No. 114 at 2-3). Defendant asserts that court-ordered deadlines should be

10

enforced and that Plaintiff has not shown the requisite good cause to modify

11

the scheduling order.
The Court agrees with Defendant that deadlines provided either in the

12
13

Federal Rules, scheduling orders or chambers rules should be enforced. Close

14

enough is not good enough. See Jones v. Ryan, No. 07-cv-1019-JMA, 2010 WL

15

3275686 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010). The Court also agrees that

16

modification of the scheduling order, under Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P.,

17

requires good cause. The standard for good cause under this Rule primarily

18

considers the diligence of the party seeking the modification. See Johnson v.

19

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
The Court will enforce its deadlines unless convinced by Plaintiff that

20
21

good cause exists to modify the scheduling order. In that regard, Plaintiff

22

offers that requests for admission serve the cause of advancing the litigation

23

by narrowing issues for trial and avoiding the necessity of proving certain

24

facts. Plaintiff also offers that he has been diligent in pursuing discovery and

25
26
27

The Court will refer to page numbers provided by CM/ECF rather than original
pagination throughout.
1

2
16-cv-1678-L-MDD

1

there is no prejudice. Plaintiff offers the case of Estate of Cruz-Sanchez v.

2

United States, No. 17-cv-0569-BEN-NLS, 2018 WL 2193415 (S.D. Cal. May

3

14, 2018), in support of its position that good cause exists here to extend the

4

scheduling order. In Estate of Cruz-Sanchez, however, the tardiness in

5

serving requests for production of documents was a consequence of the late

6

discovery of a witness with relevant documents. 2018 WL 2193415 at *2.

7

That is not the case here.
On August 22, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the

8
9

scheduling order finding, among other things, that “Plaintiff has failed to

10

demonstrate diligent and timely pursuit of discovery.” (ECF No. 82). At that

11

point, Plaintiff was on notice that the Court had issues with Plaintiff’s

12

diligence. Plaintiff’s assertion that it was delayed in writing the requests for

13

admission because Plaintiff had to wait for responses from certain third party

14

discovery is insufficient as Plaintiff has not provided any specifics regarding

15

when the responses were received and why they were essential to the

16

requests for admission. (ECF No. 114-1 at 4).
The Court recognizes and agrees with the utility of requests for

17
18

admission in potentially narrowing issues and the need for certain proof. The

19

parties again will have this opportunity in advance of their pretrial

20

conference. During the pretrial conference, the district judge will be looking

21

to the parties to simplify the issues and admit and stipulate to facts and

22

documents to avoid unnecessary proof. See Rule 16(c)(2)(A) and (C), Fed. R.

23

Civ. P. The late-served requests for admissions can serve as a template to

24

guide those discussions.

25

//

26

//

27

//
3
16-cv-1678-L-MDD

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4
5

As presented in this Joint Motion, Plaintiff’s motion to compel
responses to requests for admission is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 9, 2018

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
16-cv-1678-L-MDD