1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PMA COMPANIES, Case No.: 20-cv-2540-JES-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AND DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY THE 14 GENOX TRANSPORTATION, INC., SCHEDULING ORDER APPLIED LNG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, 15 LAIRD TRANSPORTATION, LLC and

16 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, [Dkt. No. 126] 17 Defendant. 18 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Modify the 21 Scheduling Order (the “Joint Motion”). Dkt. No. 126. The parties request that all existing 22 pretrial deadlines be continued by nine months. See id. at 5. 23 This is the parties’ fifth request to modify the pretrial schedule. See Dkt. Nos. 45, 24 62, 86, 110, 126. When the Magistrate Judge previously assigned to the case granted the 25 last request (in part), he made clear to the parties that no further continuances would be 26 granted “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances.” See Dkt. No. 113. 27 It bears repeating here that “[a] scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, 28 idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.’” Johnson v. 1 Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Yet, 2 the Joint Motion and counsel’s representations at the March 20, 2023 Status Conference 3 demonstrate that is exactly what has happened in this case: the parties have disregarded 4 Court-ordered deadlines to complete depositions and other discovery, taking it upon 5 themselves to suspend discovery without the Court’s leave. See Dkt. No. 126 at 4 6 (reporting that the parties took “several depositions . . . off calendar” and “postponed” 7 testing of the pressure relief device). Compounding the problem, the parties waited until 8 ten days before the close of fact discovery to advise the Court of the state of discovery and 9 seek a nine-month extension. 10 On the record before it, the Court does not find that the parties have demonstrated 11 extraordinary circumstances to warrant a continuation of the pretrial deadlines. 12 Considering the substantial amount of fact discovery that remains to be completed, 13 however, and to assist the Court in resolving the parties’ controversy on the merits, the 14 Court will allow a brief continuance of the fact discovery cutoff. The Court reiterates that 15 it does not condone the parties’ lack of diligence nor their failure to communicate with the 16 Court, which at a minimum “disrupt” the litigation and “undermine the [C]ourt’s ability to 17 control its docket.” Johnson,

. 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 19 PART the Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. Dkt. No. 126. The Court further 20 orders as follows: 21 1. All fact depositions shall be completed by all parties by May 8, 2023. No 22 other fact discovery is permitted at this time. 23 2. The valve inspection referenced at Dkt. No. 102 and page 4 of the Joint 24 Motion shall be completed by May 8, 2023. 25 Except as explicitly modified herein, all deadlines set forth in the Court’s November 26 22, 2022, Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 113] remain in effect. Failure to comply with any 27 of the Court’s deadlines, procedures and instructions may result in sanctions, including 28 those available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The Court reiterates its 1 ||expectation that the parties will proceed expeditiously to complete the remaining fact 2 || discovery in this case. See CivLR 16.1.b. (“All counsel and parties . .. must proceed with 3 || diligence to take all steps necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.”). 4 The Court will not continue the foregoing deadlines absent extraordinary 5 || circumstances, including a showing that any failure to comply with these deadlines 6 || was outside of counsel’s and the parties’ control. The parties may renew their motion 7 any new parties enter the action. 8 IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: March 21, 2023 _—_—

12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28