Pimentel et al v. SeaWorld et al

Filing 25

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part Joint Motion to (1) Reopen Fact Discovery and (2) Scheduling Hearing to Set New Pretrial Dates 24 Joint Motion to Reopen Fact Discovery and Vacate Pretrial Dates Except for Pretrial Conference. Status Con ference set for 1/24/2025 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/24/2025 02:30 PM before Judge John A. Houston. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/17/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu on 11/26/2024. (bdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERTO PIMENTEL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

SEAWORLD, et al.,

15

Case No.: 24-cv-0127-JAH-SBC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION
TO (1) REOPEN FACT DISCOVERY
AND (2) SCHEDULE HEARING TO
SET NEW PRETRIAL DATES
[ECF NO. 24]

Defendants.

16
17
18

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to reopen fact discovery and schedule a

19

hearing to set new pretrial dates. (ECF No. 24.) For the reasons set forth below, the joint

20

motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

The original scheduling order was issued in this case on March 21, 2024. (ECF No.

23

10.) The schedule provided a complete pretrial schedule for the case including a fact

24

discovery deadline of August 23, 2024, an expert discovery deadline of December 13,

25

2024, and a Pretrial Conference on May 14, 2025. (Id.)

26

On May 24, 2024, the Court held an attorneys-only Status Conference at which

27

Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear. (ECF No. 12.) After considering a declaration filed by

28

Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court excused counsel’s failure to appear. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.)
1

24-cv-0127-JAH-SBC

1

On September 13, 2024, three weeks after the original fact discovery cutoff, the

2

parties filed a joint motion to continue scheduling order dates. (ECF No. 18.) The Court

3

convened a Status Conference on September 17, 2024, to discuss the joint motion with

4

counsel due to its concern about the lack of progress in the case. (ECF No. 20.) On

5

September 18, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the joint

6

motion. (ECF No. 21.) The Court stated the following in its order:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court notes with concern that the parties’ joint motion for
extensions was filed on September 13, 2024, three weeks after the August 23,
2024 fact discovery deadline had passed. In other words, the parties are
seeking to retroactively continue deadlines that already passed three weeks
ago.
The Court held a zoom status conference to address concerns regarding
the parties’ diligence and efficiency. While the Court remains concerned
about the issues of diligence and efficiency, the Court nevertheless prioritizes
moving the case forward on its merits.
(Id.) The Court then issued an amended scheduling order providing a sixty-day extension
of discovery deadlines, including moving the fact discovery cutoff from August 23 to
October 18, 2024, and the expert discovery cutoff from December 13, 2024 to February
17, 2025. (Id.) The Pretrial Conference remained set for May 14, 2025. (Id.)
On November 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application to Continue Date of
Expert Exchange, Continue Discovery Cut-off Dates, and to Set Conference with Court Re
Status of Discovery. (ECF No. 22.) The Court denied the application without prejudice due
to Plaintiffs’ failure to follow the Court’s Civil Chambers Rules and referred counsel to
Section VI of the Court’s Civil Chambers Rules regarding discovery disputes for further
guidance. (ECF No. 23.)
On November 19, 2024, the parties filed the joint motion currently before the Court.
(ECF No. 24.) The parties request that fact discovery, which closed on October 18, 2024,
be reopened because the assailant(s) who allegedly attacked Plaintiffs at Defendant Sea
World LLC’s park “had not previously been disclosed by SeaWorld or otherwise identified
by the Plaintiffs until October 8, 2024.” (Id.) “The parties agree that the alleged assailant(s)
2

24-cv-0127-JAH-SBC

1

will have to be located and deposed and that his/their testimony may give rise to the

2

necessity of conducting further fact discovery.” (Id.) The parties thus jointly request that

3

“fact discovery be reopened and that all pre-trial dates currently set by the court -- except

4

for the date of the Pre-Trial Conference -- be vacated and reset at a later date after the

5

parties inform the court of the status of fact discovery.” (Id.)

6

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

7

Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court “must issue the

8

scheduling order as soon as practicable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(2). The scheduling order is

9

required to “limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery,

10

and file motions.” Id. R. 16(b)(3)(A). The schedule may be modified only for good cause

11

and with the judge’s consent. Id. R. 16(b)(4). The good cause standard under Rule 16(b)

12

“primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v.

13

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Deadlines are not

14

options.” See J.K.G. v. County of San Diego, Civil No. 11cv0305 JLS(RBB), 2012 U.S.

15

Dist. LEXIS 126195, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2012). “Allowing parties to disregard the

16

instructions of a scheduling order would undermine the court’s ability to control its docket,

17

disrupt the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the indolent and cavalier. Rule

18

16 was drafted to prevent this situation.” Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMB Munai, Inc., 05 cv

19

3749 (KMW)(DCF), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100478, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2009)

20

(citation and internal quotations omitted).

21

The standard for amending a scheduling order was described in Zivkovic v. S. Cal.

22

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002). “The pretrial schedule may be modified ‘if it

23

cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id. at

24

1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). “If the party seeking the modification ‘was not

25

diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” Id.

26

(quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). Parties must therefore “diligently attempt to adhere to

27

[the] schedule throughout the . . . course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186

28

F.R.D. 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999).
3

24-cv-0127-JAH-SBC

1

Under Rule 6, when a motion to extend time is made after the time has expired, the

2

Court may extend time “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

4

III.

DISCUSSION

5

The parties do not explicitly address good cause or excusable neglect in their joint

6

motion. Moreover, given the lack of detail in the joint motion, it is difficult for the Court

7

to ascertain whether the parties proceeded with diligence and efficiency with respect to

8

identifying the alleged assailant(s) who attacked Plaintiffs. Nonetheless, in light of the

9

parties’ agreement about the necessity of locating and deposing the alleged assailant(s),

10

and reopening fact discovery to do so, as well as the Court’s interest in moving this case

11

forward on its merits, the Court finds sufficient cause for a continuance of the discovery

12

deadlines in this case. The joint motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART.

13

As set forth above, Rule 16 requires the Court to issue a scheduling order that

14

“limit[s] the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file

15

motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). “Deadlines are not options.” J.K.G., 2012 U.S. Dist.

16

LEXIS 126195, at *4. Therefore, the parties’ request that all dates, other than the Pretrial

17

Conference, be “vacated and reset at a later date after the parties inform the court of the

18

status of fact discovery[,]” is DENIED. The Court instead issues the following fully

19

amended scheduling order. Because reopening fact discovery necessitates moving other

20

dates and deadlines in this case, the following schedule resets expert discovery deadlines,

21

the pretrial motion filing cutoff, and the Pretrial Conference and related dates:

22
23

Deadline/Event

Current Deadline

Revised Deadline

24

Motion to amend deadline
Fact discovery deadline
Expert witness designations
Rebuttal expert designations
Expert witness disclosures
Rebuttal expert disclosures

May 6, 2024
October 18, 2024
November 18, 2024
December 2, 2024
January 2, 2025
January 16, 2025

May 6, 2024 (unchanged)
January 24, 2025
February 7, 2025
February 21, 2025
March 21, 2025
April 4, 2025

25
26
27
28

4

24-cv-0127-JAH-SBC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Expert discovery deadline
Pretrial motion filing deadline
Mandatory Settlement Conference
Mandatory Settlement Conference
briefs due
Pretrial disclosures
Meeting of counsel pursuant to
Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)
Proposed pretrial order due from
counsel
Proposed Final Pretrial Conference
Order lodging
Pretrial Conference

April 16, 2025
April 23, 2025

May 2, 2025
May 30, 2025
April 2, 2025, at 10:00
a.m. (unchanged)
March 26, 2025
(unchanged)
August 27, 2025
September 3, 2025

April 30, 2025

September 10, 2025

May 7, 2025

September 17, 2025

May 14, 2025, at
2:30 p.m.

September 24, 2025, at
2:30 p.m.

February 17, 2025
March 18, 2025
April 2, 2025, at
10:00 a.m.
March 26, 2025

The Court expects the parties to fully comply with the schedule set forth above. No
further extensions will be granted absent a detailed showing of good cause. In the event the
parties seek any extension of deadlines in the future, the parties will be required to show
diligence and efficiency, and thus must detail the steps they have taken to comply with the
dates and deadlines in the schedule, including identifying the specific discovery conducted,
the specific discovery remaining outstanding, and the reason why each deadline sought to
be extended cannot be met. Finally, an attorneys-only Status Conference is set for January
24, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. To participate in the conference, counsel shall use the Zoom meeting
information to be emailed to counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 26, 2024

25
26
27
28
5

24-cv-0127-JAH-SBC