1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES PETER INGEGNO and JERRY Case No.: 20cv385-H(KSC) HAMMOND, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff, 13 DENYING IN PART JOINT v. MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 DEADLINES [Doc. No. 33.] THE PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE 15 COMPANY,

16 Defendants. 17

18

19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Deadlines. [Doc. No. 20 33.] In this Joint Motion, the parties seek a continuance of all dates and deadlines in the 21 Scheduling Order filed on November 3, 2020 [Doc. No. 31] for 60 days. There are 22 several reasons for the request. First, the offices of plaintiffs’ counsel were closed for the 23 holidays. Second, plaintiffs reside in Mexico and Arizona. Third, plaintiffs’ ability to 24 complete an investigation in Mexico to check the veracity of defendant’s investigative 25 report has been impacted by COVID-19. Fourth, plaintiffs object to conducting 26 depositions remotely via Zoom. Fifth, plaintiffs’ counsel will be out of the office the 27 week of January 16, 2021 to move his mother to assisted living. [Doc. No. 33, at pp. 3-4.] 28 / / / 1 Based on the information provided in the parties’ Joint Motion, the Court finds 2 || there is good cause for a 30-day extension of the fact discovery deadline from March 5, 3 to April 5, 2021. However, the parties have not established good cause for a 60-day 4 || extension as to all other dates and deadlines in the current Scheduling Order. 5 Because of the COVID-19 public health emergency, depositions via Zoom and 6 || other remote means have become a necessary and regular occurrence in legal 7 || proceedings. See e.g., Swenson vy. GEICO Cas. Co.,

D. Nev. 2020) 8 || (acknowledging that “courts within the Ninth Circuit routinely highlight remote 9 || depositions as an effective and appropriate means to keep cases moving forward 10 |} notwithstanding pandemic-related restrictions”); Grano v. Sodexo Management, Inc., 335 11 || F.R.D. 411 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (stating that “attorneys all over the country are having to 12 || adjust to conducting depositions via videoconference”). Accordingly, the parties are 13 || ordered to meet and confer to develop appropriate protocols for depositions in this case to 14 || be conducted remotely and to submit a proposed order to the Court no later than 15 || January 25, 2020. See, e.g., Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC 16 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2020) (Stipulated Protective Order re Remote Deposition Protocols). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: January 13, 2021 YX) 19 Mfficae _———_ 20 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28