Maiorano v. Home Depot USA, Inc. et al
Filing
33
ORDER denying 30 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/24/17. (Dembin, Mitchell)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
DEBORAH MAIORANO,
individually, and as Successor In
Interest to ANTHONY MAIORANO,
11
12
13
14
15
Case No.: 16cv2862-BEN-MDD
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO
AMEND THE SCHEDULING
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
[ECF NO. 30]
HOME DEPOT USA, INC., and,
RESIN PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendants.
16
17
Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties, filed on October 5,
18
2017, to amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 30). The parties seek a 4
19
month continuance of the discovery cutoff and the consequent pretrial dates.
20
(Id.) As provided herein, the motion is DENIED.
21
LEGAL STANDARD
22
Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a schedule may be modified
23
“only for good cause.” “Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers
24
the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth
25
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); Sharp v. Covenant Care
26
LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., provides
27
that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered,
1
16cv2862-BEN-MDD
1
and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and
2
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
DISCUSSION
3
The Complaint originally was filed in the Superior Court for San Diego
4
5
County on September 29, 2016, and removed to this Court on November 22,
6
2016. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s decedent, Anthony
7
Maiorano, died as a consequence of injuries suffered when a sawhorse
8
purchased from Defendant Home Depot and manufactured by Defendant
9
Resin Partners, collapsed due to defective design of the sawhorse.
The parties conducted their required conference, pursuant to Rule 26(f),
10
11
Fed. R. Civ. P., on January 24, 2017, and filed their Joint Discovery Plan on
12
February 8, 2017. (ECF No. 12). The Early Neutral Evaluation and Case
13
Management Conference was held telephonically on February 16, 2017.
14
(ECF No. 17). The operative Scheduling Order was filed on February 17,
15
2017. (ECF No. 18). Discovery has been open, therefore, since January 24,
16
2017, following the completion of the Rule 26(f) conference. Since many
17
parties do not conduct discovery until the Case Management Conference is
18
held, the Court will give the parties the benefit of the doubt and say that
19
discovery opened no later than February 16, 2017.
The instant motion presents Plaintiff’s request to extend the case
20
21
management order for 4 months primarily as a consequence of a discovery
22
dispute filed the same date as this motion, October 5, 2017. (ECF No. 29).
23
Defendants join in the request. (ECF No. 30 at 5). The discovery dispute has
24
been resolved by an Order filed this date and does not result in substantial or
25
meaningful additional discovery. (ECF No. 32). The Court finds that the
26
dispute was not so substantial as to justify the instant request for additional
27
time.
2
16cv2862-BEN-MDD
1
Of greater consequence, although Plaintiff did not disclose the date that
2
the discovery requests were served upon Defendants, Defendants initial
3
responses were served on Plaintiff on June 30, 2017. (ECF No. 29 at 2-3).
4
Unless relief was provided by Plaintiff, the requests at issue were served on
5
Defendants on or about May 30, 2017. See Rule 34(b)(2)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P.
6
By that point, discovery had been open for at least 3.5 months. Although
7
stating that “several” percipient witness depositions have been taken and
8
premises inspected, Plaintiff has not demonstrated due diligence sufficient
9
for this request to be granted.
CONCLUSION
10
11
The instant Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is DENIED.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: October 24, 2017
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
16cv2862-BEN-MDD
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?