Chen v. Allied Waste Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 78

ORDER Granting In Part 77 Joint Motion to Extend Expert Discovery Deadlines and Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline, and Issuing FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on 11/14/2023. (hmw)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14

QIHAI CHEN and DUALTONE
AUTOMOTIVE, INC.,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

16

v.

17

ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.,
et al.,

19

ORDER:
(1) GRANTING IN PART JOINT
MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT
DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND
PRETRIAL MOTION FILING
DEADLINE, and

Plaintiffs,

15

18

Case No.: 3:22-cv-00099-JO-AHG

(2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED
SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendants.

20

[ECF No. 77]

21
22
23
24
25

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order. ECF

26

No. 77. The parties seek an order from the Court extending the expert disclosure deadline,

27

rebuttal expert disclosure deadline, expert discovery cutoff, and pretrial motion filling

28

deadline by approximately 45 days. Id.
1
3:22-cv-00099-JO-AHG

1

Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good

2

cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with

3

the judge’s consent”); see also AHG.Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance

4

requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”).

5

“Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across

6

procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259

7

(9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to

8

amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth

9

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon

10

the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the

11

inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good

12

cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v.

13

Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept.

14

19, 2018).

15

Here, expert disclosures are due December 4, 2023; rebuttal expert disclosures are

16

due December 18, 2023; the expert discovery cutoff is January 22, 2024; and the pretrial

17

motion filing deadline is February 19, 2024. ECF No. 49 at 2–3. The parties have

18

represented to the Court that they have been working diligently to abide by the Court’s

19

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 49). ECF No. 77-1. Both sides have designated experts,

20

including damages experts. Id. at 3. However, the parties’ experts need more time to

21

complete their analysis, based on whether (and to what scope) a class is certified. Id. The

22

parties also seek to participate in settlement discussions ahead of expert report deadlines,

23

to reduce litigation costs. Id. As such, the parties request that the Court extend certain

24

scheduling order deadlines by approximately six to seven weeks—e.g., extend the expert

25

disclosure deadline to January 22, 2024; the rebuttal expert disclosures deadline to

26

February 5, 2024; the expert discovery cutoff to March 4, 2024; and the pretrial motion

27

filing deadline to April 1, 2024. ECF No. 77 at 3–4.

28

//
2
3:22-cv-00099-JO-AHG

1

The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together to complete

2

discovery. Upon due consideration, and upon a review of the docket, the Court finds good

3

cause to GRANT IN PART1 the joint motion. ECF No. 77. The Court issues the following

4

First Amended Scheduling Order:

5

1.

The

Mandatory

Settlement

Conference

remains

on

calendar

for

6

January 3, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard via

7

videoconference. The parties must comply with all procedures, requirements, and

8

deadlines set forth in ECF No. 67.

9

2.

Within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the

10

parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at [e-mail]) to

11

arrange a further case management conference. During the case management conference,

12

the Court will set new deadlines for expert disclosures, expert discovery, pretrial motions,

13

and the pretrial conference.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2023

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Though the parties suggest specific dates for the deadlines they seek to extend, the Court
has considered the procedural posture of the case and has determined that those deadlines
should be reset after the class certification motion is decided, not beforehand.
3
3:22-cv-00099-JO-AHG