1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDUARDO Y. ANGUIZOLA and Case No.: 3:24-cv-00345-JO-AHG LAYLA G. ANGUIZOLA, 12 Plaintiffs / Counter-Defendants,1 ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO EXTEND CERTAIN 14 CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

15 v. [ECF No. 27] 16 NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 17 Defendant / Counter-Claimant. 18 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to modify the scheduling order. ECF 21 No. 27. The parties seek an order from the Court extending certain case management 22 deadlines by approximately 45 to 60 days. Id. 23 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 24 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 25 the judge’s consent”); see also ECF No. 22 at 7 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates 26

27 1 Elise Marie Anguizola-Assaf is listed as a Counter-Defendant but not a Plaintiff. See ECF 28 1 [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 3 request”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 4 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, 1259 5 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 6 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 8 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 9 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 10 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 11 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS,

, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12 19, 2018). 13 “When the motion to extend time is made after time has expired, the Court must also 14 consider excusable neglect.” Multiple Energy Tech., LLC v. Casden, No. 21cv1149-ODW- 15 RAOx,

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022); see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B) 16 (“the court may, for good cause, extend the time … on motion made after the time has 17 expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect”). “Excusable neglect 18 ‘encompasses situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable 19 to negligence,’ and includes ‘omissions caused by carelessness.’” Lemoge v. United States, 20

(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 21 Ltd.,

(1993)) (alterations omitted). “The determination of whether 22 neglect is excusable is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant 23 circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Lemoge,

(internal 24 quotations omitted). In performing this analysis, courts consider: “(1) the danger of 25 prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on the 26 proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” 27 Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2000). These factors are not 28 an exclusive list, and the court must consider all relevant circumstances. S.E.C. v. Vivera 1 Pharms. Inc., No. 22cv1792-FWS-MAA,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2 2024); see Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino,

(9th Cir. 1997). Rule 6(b) 3 “is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried 4 on the merits.” Ahanchian,

. 5 Here, the parties request that the Court extend five scheduling order deadlines, one 6 of which has already passed. ECF No. 27 at 2. The parties seek to continue the 7 October 15, 2024, deadline to file a motion to amend the pleadings; the February 4, 2025, 8 fact discovery cutoff; the March 7, 2025, expert designations and disclosures deadline; the 9 April 7, 2025, rebuttal expert designations and disclosures deadline; and the May 9, 2025, 10 expert discovery cutoff.

11 Regarding the discovery deadlines, the parties represent to the Court that they have 12 been diligently working to advance the case, through “settlement discussions and discovery 13 activities.” ECF No. 27 at 5. The parties attended a private mediation with Adrienne 14 Publicover of JAMS on December 6, 2024, and “[a]lthough the matter did not settle, all 15 parties believe that significant and meaningful progress was made towards settlement [and 16 Ms. Publicover] will be working with the parties closely in the near term to bridge the 17 existing gaps and accomplish a final resolution.” Id. at 3. Thus, the parties seek an 18 approximate 45-day extension of the discovery deadlines because “[t]hese settlement 19 discussions, which are continuing, reflect a commitment to resolving the case without 20 unnecessary litigation but also necessitate extensions to accommodate their progression.” 21 Id. at 4. 22 Regarding the deadline to file a motion to amend the pleadings, the parties represent 23 to the Court that Plaintiff’s counsel transmitted her proposed Amended Complaint to 24 Defendant’s counsel on October 10, 2024, and that Defendant’s counsel provided his 25 approval on October 14, 2024. ECF No. 27-1 at 3, 5, 26. However, due to a jury trial that 26 started on October 7, 2024, and concluded on October 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel missed 27 the October 15, 2024, deadline to file her motion to amend the complaint. Id. at 2; ECF 28 No. 27 at 4 (“This trial … made timely compliance impractical due to its significant 1 demands”). Plaintiff contends that “[t]he proposed amendment is also critical to the case, 2 as it adds an indispensable party, Elise Marie Anguizola-Assaf, whose inclusion as a 3 plaintiff is necessary for the complete adjudication of the issues surrounding the life 4 insurance policy, ensuring that all essential parties are before the court.” ECF No. 27 at 4. 5 As such, the parties seek an approximate 60-day extension of the motion to amend filing 6 deadline. 7 Regarding the discovery deadlines, the Court appreciates that the parties are working 8 together, and finds good cause to GRANT their requested extensions. However, the Court 9 finds a closer call regarding the deadline to file a motion to amend the complaint. The 10 parties do not mention in the instant motion that they knew that Elise Marie Anguizola- 11 Assaf (“Elise”) was an indispensable party as of March 15, 2024, when they filed a joint 12 motion for a continuance of the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, stating that 13 “[b]ecause Elise has … is a named beneficiary of the policy, she is an indispensable party, 14 if the Court determines benefits are payable under the policy. An ENE at this stage could 15 not be meaningful … because any compromise of rights under the policy would impact the 16 rights of all named primary beneficiaries, including Elise.” ECF No. 6 at 3. The parties also 17 do not mention in the instant motion that on June 6, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel notified the 18 Court via email that they intended to amend their complaint. Email to Chambers (June 6, 19 2024, at 10:52 AM). The parties also do not address in the instant motion the delay from 20 June until October for exchanging drafts of the proposed Amended Complaint, nor do they 21 address the delay from October 25, when the jury trial finished, to December for filing the 22 instant motion. However, upon due consideration, the Court finds the counsel’s negligence 23 was excusable and that the parties acted in good faith. The Court has determined that it 24 would be more efficient to permit the parties to seek to amend the complaint, since Elise is 25 an essential party and Defendant has no objection to the amendment. Thus, in light of the 26 case’s posture, the parties’ reasons for the delay, and the preference of courts to decide 27 cases on the merits, the Court GRANTS the parties’ requested extension. The Court 28 ORDERS as follows: 1 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional 2 pleadings shall be filed by December 17, 2024. 3 2. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by March 21, 2025. 4 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 5 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 6 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 7 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 8 Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 9 regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to 10 comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 11 order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 12 recognized by the court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all 13 disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties 14 reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must e-mail chambers at 15 [email protected] no later than 45 days after the date of service of the 16 written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the 17 Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed 18 times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral 19 statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each party’s 20 position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may 21 be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the 22 movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply 23 with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 24 3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 25 April 21, 2025. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 26 evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not 27 limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by 28 May 22, 2025. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone 1 ||number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to 2 provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and 3 || trial testimony. 4 4, By April 21, 2025, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 5 ||Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 6 ||requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 7 || testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 8 ||expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 9 || make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 10 || evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 11 || the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 12 5. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 13 ||evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by May 22, 2025. 14 6. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by June 23, 2025. The 15 || parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 16 discovery. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 17 ||may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 18 || the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 19 7. All other dates, deadlines, and procedures set forth in the Court’s Scheduling 20 || Order (ECF No. 22) remain in place. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 13, 2024 7 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28