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)

Download PDF
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

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?