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)

Download PDF
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

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?