Morneau et al v. Protective Life Insurance Company

Filing 36

ORDER Granting 35 Joint Motion to Extend Fact Discovery Deadlines. 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
15

CRISTIN MORNEAU, individually;
KELLY STRANGE, individually; AND
Cristin Morneau and Kelly Strange,
jointly as successors-in-interest to
Carolyn A. Morneau and on behalf of the
ESTATE OF CAROLYN A. MORNEAU,

16
17
18
19

Case No.: 3:22-cv-01861-W-AHG
ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTION TO EXTEND FACT
DISCOVERY DEADLINES
[ECF No. 35]

Plaintiffs,
v.
PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

20
21
22

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

23

No. 35. The parties seek an order from the Court extending their deadline to raise a

24

discovery dispute and extending the fact discovery deadline by approximately two

25

weeks. Id.

26

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

27

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

28

the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 30 at 7 (amended scheduling order, stating that “[t]he dates
1
3:22-cv-01861-W-AHG

1

set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also Chmb.R. at

2

2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the

3

request”).

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

19, 2018).

14

Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they have been working

15

diligently to abide by the Court’s Second Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30). ECF

16

No. 35 at 4–5. Both sides propounded and responded to interrogatories, requests for

17

production, and requests for admission, including multiple sets of each. Id. Multiple

18

depositions have taken place, and others are scheduled for November 14, November 21,

19

and November 29. Id. at 5. The parties also represent that they are in the midst of meeting

20

and conferring regarding several discovery disputes, and seek a two-week extension of the

21

deadline to raise those disputes with the Court to “save both judicial resources and time

22

and expenses for the Parties[, since they] are working to resolve discovery disputes, and

23

may be able to eliminate or substantially diminish remaining disputes should they be given

24

more time.” Id. at 6. The parties also seek a two-week extension of the fact discovery cutoff,

25

noting that they are “rescheduling one deposition, and may need additional time beyond

26

the current [] deadline.” ECF No. 35-1 at 3–4.

27

The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together and have

28

diligently pursued discovery. Thus, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the joint motion
2
3:22-cv-01861-W-AHG

1
2

as follows:
1.

By December 1, 2023, if the parties reach an impasse after substantial meet

3

and confer efforts, the parties may bring any discovery dispute to the Court’s attention, in

4

the manner described in ¶ 2 below, via email (at [e-mail])

5

regarding Interrogatories Set One and Requests for Production Sets One and Two.

6

2.

All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by December 15, 2023.

7

“Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil

8

Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of

9

time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking

10

into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of

11

Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard

12

to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to comply

13

in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of

14

the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by

15

the court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without

16

court intervention through the meet and confer process.

17

impasse

18

efile [e-mail] no later than 45 days after the date of service of the

19

written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the

20

Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed

21

times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral

22

statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’

23

position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may

24

be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the

25

movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply

26

with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard.

27
28

3.

on

any

discovery

issue,

the

movant

must

If the parties reach an
e-mail

chambers

at

All other dates and deadlines set forth in the Court’s Second Amended

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 30) remain in place. See also ECF No. 35 at 6 (“The Parties
3
3:22-cv-01861-W-AHG

1

do not anticipate that the limited extension requested will necessitate an extension of any

2

other deadlines in the case, or any trial dates.”).

3

4.

Upon due consideration, the Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) set

4

for April 24, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard will take place

5

via videoconference instead of in person. The Court requires the attendance of all parties,

6

party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the primary

7

attorney(s) responsible for the litigation at the videoconference. In addition to the deadlines

8

set forth in ¶ 10 of the Second Amended Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 30 at 5–6), each

9

party must also email the Court (not filed) at efile [e-mail] by

10

April 17, 2024 with the name, title, and email address of each participant. Prior to the start

11

of the MSC, the Court will email each participant an invitation to join a Zoom video

12

conference. All participants shall display the same level of professionalism during the MSC

13

and be prepared to devote their full attention to the conference as if they were attending in

14

person, i.e., cannot be driving or in a car while speaking to the Court. Because Zoom may

15

quickly deplete the battery of a participant’s device, each participant should ensure that

16

their device is plugged in or that a charging cable is readily available during the

17

videoconference. Counsel are advised that although the MSC will take place on Zoom, all

18

participants shall appear and conduct themselves as if it is proceeding in a courtroom, i.e.,

19

all participants must dress in appropriate courtroom attire.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 14, 2023

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:22-cv-01861-W-AHG