Winchell et al v. The Regents of the University of California et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting in part 16 Joint Motion to amend the Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 12/01/2017. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DEVYN WINCHELL, DAVID
WINCHELL,

15
16

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART JOINT
MOTION TO AMEND THE
SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS

v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

[ECF No. 16]

Defendants.

17
18
19

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Modify or Amend the Scheduling

20

Order Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings. ECF No. 16. The parties seek

21

a 90 day extension of all dates to permit additional discovery to proceed and be completed

22

prior to the discovery cut off, and to allow ample time for the experts to review the

23

depositions prior to expert discovery and disclosure. Id. at 2.

24

Trial courts “set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment

25

and resolution of cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken

26

seriously by the parties.” Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060,

27

1062 (9th Cir. 2005). “Courts set such schedules to permit the court and the parties to

28

deal with cases in a thorough and orderly manner, and they must be allowed to enforce
1
3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS

1

them, unless there are good reasons not to.” Id. A request to modify the scheduling order

2

is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and “may be modified only for

3

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The good cause standard articulated in Rule

4

16 focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order, and the

5

reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. 975 F.2d 604,

6

609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for

7

seeking modification. ... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”)

8

(citing Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D.Me.1985)).

9

district court may amend the scheduling order if it “cannot be met despite the diligence of

The

10

the party seeking the extension.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee

11

Notes).

12

With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the parties’ joint motion. The

13

parties’ submissions demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ depositions were only completed

14

November 21, but offer that the delay was due to medical conditions and “scheduling

15

conflicts amongst all parties.” ECF No. 16 at 2, ¶ 2. The joint motion also makes clear

16

that Plaintiffs’ deposition requests were not sent until November 3, 2017, and offer no

17

explanation for the delay. Id. at ¶ 3. The parties also represent that counsel for defendant

18

the Regents of the University of California are engaged in trial expected to conclude

19

December 18. Id. at 8. The parties submit that a 90 day continuance is required to permit

20

time to complete depositions and permit the experts time to review all the necessary

21

deposition transcripts.

22

Here, the parties were provided approximately eight months for fact discovery in the

23

initial scheduling order, with an additional three months for expert discovery. See ECF

24

No. 12. The medical condition of the plaintiff and the trial currently in-progress are the

25

only good cause presented in the parties’ submission, but the plaintiff's deposition is now

26

complete, and the trial is expected to conclude December 18, 2017. The remaining

27

diligence of the parties is unclear. While they represent written discovery has been

28

///
2
3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS

1

ongoing, the parties only recently sought a protective order (see ECF Nos. 14-15) and

2

plaintiffs only recently noticed depositions (ECF No. 16 at 2, ¶ 3).

3

The Court does not find good cause to provide a 90 day extension of all dates, or to

4

continue the pretrial motion filing deadline or any dates thereafter, and DENIES this

5

request of the joint motion. However, the Court finds it appropriate based on the parties’

6

submission to modify the fact and expert discovery deadlines and GRANTS IN PART the

7

joint motion to amend the Scheduling Order as follows:

8
9
10
11

1. The close of fact discovery (see ECF No. 12, ¶ 2) is continued from December
15, 2017 to February 2, 2018.
2. The deadline for expert designation and disclosures (see ECF No. 12, ¶¶ 3, 4) is
continued from January 26, 2018 to February 23, 2018.

12

3. The deadline for the exchange of rebuttal experts and supplemental disclosure

13

(see ECF No. 12, ¶¶ 3, 5) is continued from February 26, 2018 to March 16,

14

2018.

15
16

4. The close of expert discovery (see ECF No. 12, ¶ 6) is continued from March 26,
2018 to April 6, 2018.

17

All other dates, deadlines, requirements and instructions set forth in the initial scheduling

18

order (ECF No. 12) remain unchanged.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-00176-JAH-NLS