Cammarata v. Kelly Capital, LLC et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 56 The Parties' Motion for Extension of Time and Amended Scheduling Order: Proposed Pretrial Order due by 1/14/2019. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/22/2019 10:30 AM before Judge Roger T. Benitez. Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 9/4/2018 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 4/4/2018. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Frank CAMMARATA,

Case No.: 17-cv-0346-BEN-AGS

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER ON THE PARTIES’
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME (ECF No. 56) AND AMENDED
SCHEDULING ORDER

KELLY CAPITAL, LLC, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Earlier in these proceedings, defendants refused to respond to various discovery

17

requests on the grounds that they were “not relevant,” “unduly burdensome,” and “a waste

18

of resources” in light of defendants’ pending summary judgment motion. (See, e.g., ECF

19

No. 41-14, at 3-18 (responses to interrogatories).) On February 20, 2018, this Court granted

20

plaintiff’s motion to compel, finding that defendants’ objection was unfounded. Because

21

this pretrial dispute delayed discovery, the Court ordered the parties to submit a joint

22

motion proposing a new scheduling order. As set out below, the Court grants in part and

23

denies in part the parties’ resulting motion to extend discovery.

24

The scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

16(b)(4). Generally, “good cause may be found where the moving party shows . . . it is

26

unable to comply with the scheduling order’s deadlines due to matters not reasonably

27

foreseeable at the time the scheduling order issued, and that it was diligent in seeking a

28

modification once it became apparent it could not comply with the scheduling order.”
1
17-cv-0346-BEN-AGS

1

Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citation omitted); see

2

also In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013)

3

(“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

4

the amendment.” (citation omitted)).

5

There is good cause to extend plaintiff’s discovery deadlines. Defendants’ summary-

6

judgment objection to discovery was unforeseeable because it was unsupported by law or

7

practice. Plaintiff ultimately moved to compel discovery. Had defendants timely responded

8

to plaintiff’s discovery requests, plaintiff would have had months remaining in fact

9

discovery to complete depositions. Accordingly, the Court will grant plaintiff a significant

10

extension of time to complete fact discovery.

11

The same cannot be said of defendants. To date, defendants have cited no legal

12

authority to support their position that a summary judgment motion functionally requires a

13

stay or limitation on discovery. Moreover, defendants conceded that their discovery

14

obligations were clarified by this Court’s January 31, 2018 Order, which they interpreted

15

“as an indication that there would be no limitation on the scope of discovery. . . .” (ECF

16

No. 48, at 4.) Yet defendants never served a single discovery request.

17

Thus, the Court concludes that defendants have not been diligent in completing

18

discovery. The Court will not entertain defendants’ request for phased discovery—an

19

argument now raised and rejected multiple times—because it would again significantly

20

delay the case’s resolution. Nevertheless, because defendants have done no fact discovery

21

whatsoever and the deadline for doing so has passed, the Court will grant defendants a

22

limited opportunity to complete fact discovery. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

23

Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 16, the central pretrial rule,

24

authorizes a court to manage cases so that disposition is expedited [and] wasteful pretrial

25

activities are discouraged. . . . [But] [t]he goal is to get cases decided on the merits of the

26

issues that are truly meritorious and in dispute.”).

27
28

Accordingly, the following dates in the scheduling order (ECF No. 15) are vacated
and rescheduled as set forth on the next page:
2
17-cv-0346-BEN-AGS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Event
Fact Discovery Cutoff
Expert Designations
and Disclosures
Defendants’ Pretrial
Motions Deadline
Rebuttal/ Supplemental
Expert Designations
and Disclosures
Expert Discovery
Cutoff
Mandatory Settlement
Conference Briefs
Mandatory Settlement
Conference
Plaintiff’s Pretrial
Motions Deadline
Pretrial Disclosures
Meet and Confer on the
Pretrial Order
Draft Pretrial Order to
Opposing Counsel
Lodge Pretrial Order

18
19

Pretrial Conference

Plaintiff’s Deadline
June 27, 2018

Defendants’ Deadline
May 21, 2018

June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

N/A

July 13, 2018

July 27, 2018

July 27, 2018

August 27, 2018

August 27, 2018

August 28, 2018

August 28, 2018

September 4, 2018, at
9:00 a.m.

September 4, 2018, at
9:00 a.m.

September 28, 2018

N/A

December 21, 2018

December 21, 2018

December 28, 2018

December 28, 2018

January 7, 2019

January 7, 2019

January 14, 2019
January 22, 2019, at
10:30 a.m.

January 14, 2019
January 22, 2019, at
10:30 a.m.

20
21

This order does not affect any of the scheduling order’s other provisions, all of which

22

remain in effect.

23

Dated: April 4, 2018

24
25
26
27
28
3
17-cv-0346-BEN-AGS