Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.

Filing 110

ORDER Granting 109 Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, and Issuing THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on 9/7/2021. (hmw)

Download PDF
Case 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG Document 110 Filed 09/07/21 PageID.2059 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 TODD HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., 16 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 14 15 Case No.: 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER, and v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. 17 (2) ISSUING THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 18 19 [ECF No. 109] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion amend the scheduling order. ECF No. 109. The parties seek an order from the Court extending case management deadlines by approximately 45 days. Id. Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent”); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”); ECF No. 99 at 3 (“[t]he dates set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also 1 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG Case 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG Document 110 Filed 09/07/21 PageID.2060 Page 2 of 3 1 Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause 2 for the request”). 3 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 4 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 5 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 6 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 8 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 9 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 10 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that the parties have been working 11 diligently to abide by the Court’s amended scheduling order (ECF No. 99), which set the 12 class discovery cutoff for September 30 and the class certification motion filing deadline 13 for November 1. ECF No. 109-1 at 4; ECF No. 109 at 4. Plaintiff’s counsel needs more 14 time to review the 194,000 pages of documents produced by Defendant. ECF No. 109 at 15 3; see also ECF Nos. 90, 96, 103, 105 (orders granting extensions for Defendant’s 16 production). The parties are also in the midst of scheduling four depositions: Defendant’s 17 Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Plaintiff George Abelsayed, former-Plaintiff Julie Drassinower, and 18 former-Plaintiff Jesse Heineken. ECF No. 109 at 3–4. Hence, the parties seek an order from 19 the Court extending all case management deadlines by approximately 45 days. 20 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together and finds that the 21 parties have demonstrated the diligence necessary to meet the good cause standard. 22 Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion and issues the following amended scheduling 23 order: 24 1. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be 25 completed by November 1, 2021. “Completed” means that all discovery requests governed 26 by Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under 27 Rule 45, must be propounded sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date so that 28 they may be completed by that date, taking into account the time permitted in the Rules 2 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG Case 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG Document 110 Filed 09/07/21 PageID.2061 Page 3 of 3 1 for service, notice, and responses. If any discovery disputes arise, counsel must meet and 2 confer promptly and in good faith in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to 3 comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 4 order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 5 recognized by the Court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all 6 disputes without court intervention through the meet-and-confer process. If the parties 7 reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must email chambers at 8 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of service of the 9 written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the 10 Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed 11 times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral 12 statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ 13 position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may 14 be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the 15 movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply 16 with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, which can be found 17 on the district court website. 18 2. Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by December 16, 2021.1 19 3. Within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the 20 parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to 21 arrange a further case management conference. 22 4. 23 24 25 The dates set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 7, 2021 26 27 1 28 Should Plaintiffs not file a class certification motion, they must notify the Court via email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) by December 21, 2021. 3 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG

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?