Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California partially granted and partially denied the parties’ joint motion to extend discovery and related case-management deadlines. The court found the parties had not shown diligence in timely seeking an extension but granted limited relief to facilitate document production, depositions, expert discovery, and settlement discussions.
Holdings
- The parties did not demonstrate diligence because they filed the motion after the affected deadline, but the court nevertheless found good cause sufficient to grant the joint motion in part in the interest of facilitating settlement and the scheduled mediation.
- The court granted the joint motion in part and established revised deadlines for document production, depositions, expert disclosures and discovery, pretrial motions, and related case-management matters, while leaving all other scheduling-order dates and procedures in place.
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order and extend discovery deadlines.
- Whether the requested extensions and related scheduling changes should be granted despite the parties' failure to file the motion before the affected deadlines.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Liguori v. Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012)(followed)
- Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Doe v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-217-JLS-AHG, 2025 WL 2881574, at *1-*2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025)(followed)
- Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 16-cv-1103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…