Snelson v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC et al

Filing 58

Order Granting Motions to Extend Fact Discovery and Expert Discovery Deadlines (Dkt. Nos. 56 , 57 ). Status Report due by 5/24/2023. In-person Status Conference set for 5/26/2023 at at 03:00 PM before Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner on 5/18/23. (jmo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN TODD SNELSON ,

Case No.: 22-cv-551-BAS-DDL
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, formerly
FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION;
PENSKE TRUCK LEASING, CO. L.P.;
PENSKE CORPORATION; PENSKE
AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.,

15
16
17
18
19

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY AND
EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINES
[Dkt. Nos. 56, 57]

Defendants.

20

On May 10, 2023, pursuant to this Court’s minute order [Dkt. No. 55], the parties

21

filed a joint motion to extend the expert discovery deadlines (“Expert Discovery Motion”).

22

Dkt. No. 56. The Expert Discovery Motion is not opposed by any party. On May 15, 2023,

23

the parties filed a second joint motion to extend the fact discovery deadline for the limited

24

purpose of completing depositions (“Fact Discovery Motion”). Dkt. No. 57. Plaintiff

25

Brian Todd Snelson (“Plaintiff”), Defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. (“Penske”),

26

and Plaintiff-In-Intervention Security National Insurance Company (“SNIC”) stipulate to

27

the continuance requested in the Fact Discovery Motion. Defendant Daimler Trucks North

28

America, LLC (“Daimler”) opposes the Fact Discovery Motion on the grounds that
1
22-cv-551-BAS-DDL

1

Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for a continuance and failed to exercise

2

reasonable diligence in pursuing discovery, which includes taking the Rule 30(b)(6)

3

depositions of several out-of-state witnesses. Moreover, Daimler asserts that it would be

4

prejudiced by an extension of the fact discovery deadline because its counsel and corporate

5

representatives have scheduling conflicts during the proposed deposition timeline.

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that a pretrial scheduling order

7

“may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

8

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”

9

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “If that party

10

was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”

11

On October 13, 2022, the Court issued the operative Scheduling Order that required

12

the parties to complete all fact discovery by April 13, 2023. Dkt. No. 14 at 3. Thereafter,

13

the Court held status conferences with the parties on December 7, 2022 and March 8, 2023.

14

Dkt. Nos. 18, 31. At the March 8 status conference, the parties raised the issue of extending

15

the fact discovery deadline to take depositions under Rule 30(b)(6), but Plaintiff did not

16

file any such motion prior to April 13, 2023.

17

Plaintiff asserts that he was diligent in seeking discovery because his counsel raised

18

the issue of scheduling depositions under Rule 30(b)(6) with defense counsel in March

19

2023 and was told that Daimler’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee was unavailable until August

20

2023. Dkt. No. 57 at 6-7. Plaintiff further asserts that he “intentionally waited to formally

21

notice the Rule (30)(b)(6) depositions to allow the Defendants to provide dates that would

22

work for their witness(es).” Id. at 7. However, Plaintiff offers no reason why he did not

23

seek an extension of the fact discovery deadline to take the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions or

24

why he did not issue subpoenas for the depositions of third-party witnesses Joe Bruni and

25

Jeremy Russell prior to April 13, 2023.

26

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s counsel did not take reasonable steps to

27

complete fact discovery by the deadline of April 13, 2023. However, declining to extend

28

the fact discovery deadline would adversely affect Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this case,
2
22-cv-551-BAS-DDL

1

and the Court is “reluctant to punish” Mr. Snelson for his counsel’s failure to take the

2

depositions in a timely manner. Rahbarian v. Cawley, No. 2:10-CV-00767-TLN, 2013

3

WL 6271865, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013) (allowing plaintiff additional time to examine

4

documents because “the Court is reluctant to punish Plaintiffs themselves for the indolence

5

of their attorney.”).

6
7

The Court GRANTS the motion to extend the deadline for fact discovery as follows:
EVENT

PRIOR DEADLINE

NEW DEADLINE

Supplemental Expert Designations

May 11, 2023

June 12, 2023

Expert Disclosures

June 8, 2023

July 10, 2023

12

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures

June 22, 2023

July 24, 2023

13

Fact Discovery Cutoff

April 13, 2023

June 30, 2023

Expert Discovery Cutoff

July 20, 2023

August 21, 2023

Pretrial Motions Filing Deadline

September 7, 2023

NO CHANGE

8
9
10
11

14
15
16
17
18

Mandatory Settlement Conference

21

Deadline to Submit Mandatory
Settlement Conference Briefs
Pretrial Disclosures Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)

22
23

19
20

August 8, 2023
NO CHANGE
at 1:30 p.m.
The parties shall refer to the undersigned’s
Mandatory Settlement Conference Procedures.
December 11, 2023

NO CHANGE

Meeting of Counsel

December 18, 2023

NO CHANGE

24

Proposed Pretrial Order to
Opposing Counsel

December 22, 2023

NO CHANGE

25

Lodging of Proposed Pretrial Order

January 2, 2024

NO CHANGE

26

Pretrial Conference

January 8, 2024
at 11:00 a.m.

NO CHANGE

Motions in Limine

January 22, 2024

NO CHANGE

27
28

3
22-cv-551-BAS-DDL

1

Responses to Motions in Limine

February 5, 2024

NO CHANGE

3

Trial Documents Deadline

February 5, 2024

NO CHANGE

4

Deadline to Exchange Final Exhibit
and Witness Lists

October 8, 2024

NO CHANGE

2

5
6

Hearing on Motions in Limine

7

Trial Date

8
9

October 7, 2024
at 10:30 a.m.
October 15, 2024
at 9:00 a.m.

NO CHANGE
NO CHANGE

The Court ORDERS as follows:

10

1. The parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding a deposition schedule that

11

will allow the parties to complete fact witness depositions on or before June 30,

12

2023.

13
14

2. On or before May 24, 2023, the parties shall file a joint status report regarding
the fact witness deposition schedule.

15

3. The Court sets an in-person status conference for May 26, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. If

16

the parties are unable to agree on a deposition schedule, the Court will set

17

deposition dates at the status conference. The Court will vacate the status

18

conference if the parties represent in their May 24 joint status report that they

19

have reached agreement on fact witness deposition dates.

20
21
22
23

4. No further extensions of the pretrial schedule will be permitted absent a showing
of extraordinary circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2023

24
25
26

Hon. David D. Leshner
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
4
22-cv-551-BAS-DDL