1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 ERIC WOOLSEY, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00877-BEN-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER

14 v. (1) GRANTING IN PART JOINT 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE JACK REED, and DOES 1–25, MANAGEMENT DEADLINES, and 16

Defendants. 17 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 18

19 [ECF No. 22]

20 21 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue case management deadlines. 22 ECF No. 22. The parties seek to extend all deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling 23 Order (ECF No. 16) by approximately 60 days. ECF No. 22 at 2. 24 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate 25 good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause 26 and with the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 16 at 5 (scheduling order, stating that the “dates 27 and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 28 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 1 request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 2 specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 3 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 4 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). “Good 5 cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and 6 statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 7 The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 8 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson,

9 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. 10 ... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 11 Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original 12 deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 13

, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 14 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they seek a 60-day continuance 15 of all case management deadlines because of “unexpected COVID-19 issues, availability 16 of witnesses, difficulty in compiling discovery information, and Plaintiff’s attorney’s 17 pending trial call on January 21.” ECF No. 22 at 1. 18 As an initial matter, the parties’ motion is deficient. First, the parties failed to provide 19 a declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2 20 (requiring that the joint motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking 21 the continuance that describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and 22 the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”). The Court will take the parties at 23 their words without the required declaration, but will not do so again. 24 Second, the parties’ motion failed to include specific facts or any framework for a 25 finding of diligence. The motion includes one sentence regarding the reason for seeking 26 the continuance—“unexpected COVID-19 issues, availability of witnesses, difficulty in 27 compiling discovery information, and Plaintiff’s attorney’s pending trial call on 28 January 21.” ECF No. 22 at 1. Without more, this conclusory sentence is simply 1 insufficient. See, e.g., ECF No. 16 (discovery has been open since August 2021). Court 2 staff reached out to the parties for more detailed reasoning for the requested continuance, 3 and the parties failed to respond. ECF No. 23. Therefore, the Court set a discovery 4 conference in the matter, to ascertain the parties’ reasons for seeking the continuance. Id.; 5 ECF No. 24. After the discovery conference, the Court required the parties to submit a joint 6 status report including “a list of depositions that will be taken, the firm dates for each 7 deposition, and confirmation that all depositions notices have been served.” ECF No. 25. 8 The parties have since filed their joint status report (ECF No. 26), which lists 13 depositions 9 yet to be taken. This information should have been included in the required declaration in 10 the original joint motion. 11 Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings, based on the representations of counsel at 12 the recent discovery conference and upon review of the parties’ joint status report, the 13 Court finds good cause to GRANT IN PART the motion. The Court issues the following 14 Amended Scheduling Order: 15 1. No further discovery (written or via deposition notice) is allowed to be served 16 after the original January 25, 2022 fact discovery cutoff, except for expert discovery. See 17 ECF No. 25. 18 2. All fact discovery (limited via ECF Nos. 25, 26) shall be completed by all 19 parties by March 25, 2022. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 20 regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to comply 21 in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the 22 court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. 23 The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court 24 intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any 25 discovery issue, the movant must e-mail chambers at [email protected] no 26 later than 45 days after the date of service of the written discovery response that is in 27 dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the Court to discuss the discovery dispute. 28 The email must include: (1) at least three proposed times mutually agreed upon by the 1 parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral statement of the dispute; and (3) one 2 sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ position. The movant must copy opposing 3 counsel on the email. No discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted its 4 pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the movant has obtained leave of Court. All 5 parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules of 6 Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 7 3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 8 April 25, 2022. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), the parties must 9 identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 10 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This requirement is not limited to retained 11 experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by May 25, 2022. The written 12 designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a 13 reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also 14 include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 15 4. By April 25, 2022, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 16 Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 17 requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 18 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 19 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 20 make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 21 evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 22 the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 37(c). 24 5. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 25 evidence under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by May 25, 2022. 26 6. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by June 27, 2022. The 27 parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 28 discovery. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 1 may result in the sanctions provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, including a 2 prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 3 7. All other pretrial motions must be filed by August 19, 2022. Counsel for the 4 moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 5 hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 6 hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 7 to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 8 Deadlines for filing motions in limine will be set by the district judge at the final Pretrial 9 Conference. 10 8. When filing a Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, the parties 11 need not file a separate statement of material facts absent prior leave of court. 12 9. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on 13 November 9, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Allison H. 14 Goddard. Plaintiff must serve on Defendant a written settlement proposal, which must 15 include a specific demand amount, no later than October 19, 2022. The defendant must 16 respond to the plaintiff in writing with a specific offer amount prior to the Meet and Confer 17 discussion. The parties should not file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. 18 Rather, the parties must include their written settlement proposals in their respective 19 Settlement Conference Statements to the Court. Counsel for the parties must meet and 20 confer in person, by videoconference, or by phone no later than October 26, 2022. Each 21 party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will be served on opposing 22 counsel and lodged with the Court no later than November 2, 2022. The Statement must 23 be lodged in .pdf format via email to [email protected] (not filed). The 24 substance of the Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with Judge 25 Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located on the court website at 26 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Mandatory%20Settlem 27 ent%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential 28 Settlement Letter for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than 1 November 2, 2022. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 2 [email protected] (not filed). Should a party choose to prepare a Letter, 3 the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s 4 Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules. All parties are ordered to read and to fully 5 comply with the Chambers Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of 6 Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard.. 7 10. In jury trial cases before the Honorable Roger T. Benitez, neither party, unless 8 otherwise ordered by the Court, is required to file Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and 9 Law pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(2). 10 11. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Federal 11 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) by January 3, 2023. Failure to comply with these 12 disclosure requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. 14 12. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) 15 by January 9, 2023. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 16 stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 17 exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. 18 The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel 19 shall note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the 21 proposed pretrial conference order. 22 13. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 23 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By 24 January 17, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed 25 pretrial order for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly 26 with plaintiff’s attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, 27 and both parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the 28 order. 1 14. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 2 ||other parties’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be 3 || prepared, served and lodged with the assigned district judge by January 23, 2023, and 4 ||shall be in the form prescribed in and comply with Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 5 15. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 6 || Roger T. Benitez on January 30, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. 7 16. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 8 magistrate judge. 9 17. <A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 10 || within 30 days of verdict in the case. 11 18. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 12 || shown. 13 19. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 14 not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. 15 || No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. 16 || Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents 17 || and a table of authorities cited. 18 20. Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this 19 || case hereafter. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 31, 2022 _ Aion H. Xolar Honorable Allison H. Goddard 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28