William J. Mouren Farming, Inc. v. Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC ( 2019 )

1 GCLLEYMNNEN &T FLI.N GLLEYYN, LNL, PB ar No. 57117 2 ADAM FRIEDENBERG, Bar No. 205778 MORGAN K. LOPEZ, Bar No. 215513 3 One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 4 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 210-2800 5 Facsimile: (925) 945-1975 Email: cglynn@glynnfinley.com 6 Email: mlopez@glynnfinley.com 7 Attorneys for Defendants Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC and 8 ConocoPhillips. 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 ) Case No. 18-cv-00404-DAD-BAM 13 WILLIAM J. MOUREN FARMING, INC., ) a California corporation, dba W.J. ) STIPULATION AND ORDER 14 MOUREN FARMING, ) REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY ) CUTOFF 15 Plaintiff, ) ) 16 vs. ) ) Courtroom: 8 17 PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE, LLC, a Delaware ) limited liability company; ) Judge: Barbara A. McAuliffe 18 CONOCOPHILLIPS, a Delaware ) corporation; and Does 1 through 100, ) 19 ) Defendants. ) 20 ) _ ___________________________________ ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Discovery Cutoff as September 6, 2019; 2 WHEREAS the parties have disclosed a total of nine experts; 3 WHEREAS the parties diligently have been working to complete expert discovery by the 4 September 6 deadline but have not yet done so; 5 WHEREAS Defendants intend to file a motion for summary judgment on or before the 6 September 13, 2019 Pretrial Motion Filing Deadline established in the Scheduling Conference 7 Order; 8 WHEREAS the Court has advised the parties that due to its current caseload crisis there 9 is typically a significant delay before dispositive civil motions will be decided; 10 WHEREAS the Court has also advised the parties that it is extremely likely that the 11 current March 4, 2020 trial date would be vacated were a dispositive motion filed; and 12 WHEREAS the parties wish to avoid the cost and expense of engaging in expert 13 discovery that would be mooted were Defendants’ summary judgment motion granted. 14 IT is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Defendants and Plaintiff 15 that: 16 The Expert Disclovery Cutoff established in the Scheduling Order shall be extended from 17 September 6, 2019 to 30 days following issuance of the decision on Defendants’ motion for 18 summary judgment. 19 Dated: August 29, 2019 WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC TIMOTHY JONES 20 JOHN P. KINSEY PATRICK D. TOOLE 21 By /s/ Patrick D. Toole 22 Attorney for Plaintiff William J. Mouren Farming, Inc. 23 Dated: August 29, 2019 GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP 24 CLEMENT L. GLYNN ADAM FRIEDENBERG 25 MORGAN K. LOPEZ 26 By /s/ Morgan K. Lopez Attorneys for Defendants Phillips 66 27 Pipeline, LLC and ConocoPhillips. 28 1 2 Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and 3 with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “good cause” standard “primarily 4 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 5 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot 6 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. If the party was 7 not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 8 Here, the parties have failed to establish good cause for the requested modification. Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 16(b). (See also Doc. No. 24, p. 5.) Notably, the parties’ stipulation states that they 10 have been diligent in working to complete expert discovery but does not provide any support for 11 this conclusion or set forth any explanation of their attempts to meet the applicable expert 12 discovery deadlines and the reasons for their inability to do so. Accordingly, having reviewed 13 the parties’ stipulation, the Court DENIES the request to modify the Scheduling Order in this 14 action without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: August 30, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28