Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno

1 | Benjamin K. Mason (State Bar No. 289066) Daniel J. Ban (State Bar No. 172521) MORLEY MASson, PLC 2600 W. Geronimo Pl., Ste. 100 Chandler, AZ 85224 | Telephone: 480.320.1254 Facsimile: 480.505.0926 [email protected] [email protected] . [email protected] orders(@morleymason.com Attorneys for Amazing Insurance, Inc. || and Third-Party Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 AMAZING INSURANCE, INC, a Georgia Case No. 2:19-cv-01349-TLN-CKD 4 corporation, 14 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. 15 CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY MICHAEL A. DIMANNO, an individual, DISCOVERY DEADLINES: 16 and ACCUIRE, LLC, a Florida limited ORDER 7 liability company, 18 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

19 □□ 20 MICHAEL A. DIMANNO, an individual, and ACCUIRE, LLC, a Florida limited | liability company, Counterclaim Plaintiffs, 23 v. | WVIKASH JAIN, an individual, GERALD DOUGLAS ANDERTON, an individual, 25 KARA CHILDRESS, an individual, and ALEX CAMPOS, an individual, Third-Party Defendants.

□□□ l Plaintiff Amazing Insurance, Inc. and Third-Party Defendants (collectively, in this || document, “Plaintiff’) file the following Consent Motion to Modify Discovery Deadlines: 3 INTRODUCTION 4 The parties’ efforts to complete discovery in this case have become much more fruitful over || the last several weeks and months, but unfortunately require short extension of the current deadlines || in order to be completed. Defendants consent to the relief sought herein.

7 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 8 The Court entered an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order on July 18, 2019 (the “Pretrial 9 Order”). ECF No. 3. The Pretrial Order set a number of discovery deadlines, keyed off trial dates 10. || and Answer dates. Jd. On January 31, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Status Report providing for | different discovery deadlines. ECF No. 33. The Court did not adopt or agree to these deadlines; | therefore, the governing deadlines were those from the Pretrial Order. The Court then issued ECF 13. || No. 43 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On December 30, 2020, in response to a | Joint Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery, the Court issued ECF No. 78, which set new || discovery deadlines in this matter. On March 1, 2021, the parties consented to a further extension || of discovery deadlines, after which the Court then issued ECF No. 81. On March 31, 2021, the | courtissued ECF No. 83 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On May 10, 2021, the | court issued ECF No. 85 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On June 25, 2021, the | parties consented to a further extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issued ECF | No. 89, which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On August 26, 2021, the parties consented | toa further extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issues ECF No. 93, which set || new discovery deadlines in this matter. On November 2, 2021, the parties consented to a further | extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issued ECF No. 95, which set new || discovery deadlines in this matter. On December 6, 2021, the parties consented to a further | extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issued ECF No. 99, which set new 26 discovery deadlines in this matter. On March 15, 2022, the parties consented to a further extension || of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issued ECF No. 103, which set new discovery || deadlines in this matter.

-2- ] 2 STANDARD OF LAW 3 This Court has broad discretion to amend to govern the pretrial phase of litigation before it, | “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its | decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order . . . will not be disturbed unless they || evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 7 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). As stated | by the Court itself, and by case law, the Court can modify its pretrial order on a showing of good || cause, “A pretrial order controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified ‘upon a | showing of good cause.'* Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.

11 | 1 (th Cir. 2006) (citing E/Hakem vy. BJY Inc.,415 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir. 2005); Zivkovic v. S.

12 | Cal. Edison Co.,302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)), petition for cert. filed, 74 U.S.L.W. 3407 | (U.S. Oct. 19, 2005) (No. 05-84); see also Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co.,400 F.3d 238, | 245 (5th Cir. 2005) (“It goes without saying that a pre-trial order controls the scope and course of } } trial... .”).

16 ARGUMENT 17 The parties have exchanged discovery responses, and further supplemental responses are || expected. Many of the expected nine (or more) contemplated depositions have been completed, and || the parties are actively communicating through counsel and working to accommodate the taking of || said depositions. However, a Motion to Consolidate this case with Case no 2:18-cv-02066-TLN- || CKD has been filed and set for hearing on 6/16/2022, the outcome of which would modify further || the discovery deadlines and responsibilities in this case.

23 Based on this, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants, and Defendants, each through counsel, | have agreed that the parties would request an extension of deadlines. Plaintiff therefore respectfully || asks the Court to modify the discovery deadlines as follows: Requested by Parties -3- 1 Initial Expert Disclosures July 15, 2022 October 13, 2022 5 Supplemental Expert August 14, 2022 November 12, 2022 Disclosures 3 September 29, 2022 December 28, 2022 4 CONCLUSION > WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court grant the relief detailed above, as to which all parties consent.

7 | DATED this 10th day of May, 2022.

8 MORLEY MAsgn, PLC 10 By: Benyamin Mason M&ei_ey- Mason, PLC 12 Attorneys for Amazing Insurance, Inc. and All Third-Party Defendants

-4- 1 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL 2 I certify that, on May 10, 2022, I communicated with John Shoreman, counsel for || Defendants, wherein Mr. Shoreman represented to me that Defendants do not oppose the relief | sought. Mr. Shoreman confirmed his approval of this {uirppvia email to me on May 10, 2022.

Cc _ 6 By:_¥ pdnjami> K. Mason -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 [hereby certify that on May 10, 2022, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing via | ECF filing email on all counsel of record. f= By: 5 jamin K. Mason SO ORDERED. () ) 8 “ Yo hicaun DATED: May 11, 2022 — MAN □□ Troy L. Nunley 10 United States District Judge «.