Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno ( 2021 )

1 Benjamin K. Mason (State Bar No. 289066) Daniel J. Ban (State Bar No. 172521) 2 MORLEY MASON, PLC 3 2600 W. Geronimo Pl., Ste. 100 Chandler, AZ 85224 4 Telephone: 480.320.1254 Facsimile: 480.505.0926 5 ben@morleymason.com dban@morleymason.com 6 Attorneys for Amazing Insurance, Inc. 7 and Third-Party Defendants 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMAZING INSURANCE, INC, a Georgia Case No. 2:19-cv-01349-TLN-CKD corporation, 12 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, 13 v. 14 CONSENT MOTION TO MODIFY MICHAEL A. DiMANNO, an individual, DISCOVERY DEADLINES; 15 and ACCUIRE, LLC, a Florida limited ORDER liability company, 16 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 17 __________________________________ 18 19 MICHAEL A. DiMANNO, an individual, and ACCUIRE, LLC, a Florida limited 20 liability company, 21 Counterclaim Plaintiffs, 22 v. 23 VIKASH JAIN, an individual, GERALD DOUGLAS ANDERTON, an individual, 24 KARA CHILDRESS, an individual, and ALEX CAMPOS, an individual, 25 Third-Party Defendants. 26 27 Plaintiff Amazing Insurance, Inc. and Third-Party Defendants (collectively, in this 28 1 document, “Plaintiff”) file the following Consent Motion to Modify Discovery Deadlines: 2 INTRODUCTION 3 The parties’ efforts to complete discovery in this case have becom e much more fruitful over 4 the last several weeks and months, but unfortunately require short extension of the current deadlines 5 in order to be completed. Defendants consent to the relief sought herein. 6 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 7 The Court entered an Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order on July 18, 2019 (the “Pretrial 8 Order”). ECF No. 3. The Pretrial Order set a number of discovery deadlines, keyed off trial dates 9 and Answer dates. Id. On January 31, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Status Report providing for 10 different discovery deadlines. ECF No. 33. The Court did not adopt or agree to these deadlines; 11 therefore, the governing deadlines were those from the Pretrial Order. The Court then issued ECF 12 No. 43 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On December 30, 2020, in response to a 13 Joint Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery, the Court issued ECF No. 78, which set new 14 discovery deadlines in this matter. On March 1, 2021, the parties consented to a further extension 15 of discovery deadlines, after which the Court then issued ECF No. 81. On March 31, 2021, the 16 court issued ECF No. 83 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On May 10, 2021, the 17 court issued ECF No. 85 which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On June 25, 2021, the 18 parties consented to a further extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issued ECF 19 No. 89, which set new discovery deadlines in this matter. On August 26, 2021, the parties consented 20 to a further extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issues ECF No. 93, which set 21 new discovery deadlines in this matter. On November 2, 2021, the parties consented to a further 22 extension of discovery deadlines, after which the Court issues ECF No. 95, which set new discovery 23 deadlines in this matter. 24 25 STANDARD OF LAW 26 This Court has broad discretion to amend to govern the pretrial phase of litigation before it, 27 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its 28 decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order . . . will not be disturbed unless they 1 evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 2 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir. 1985)). As stated 3 by the Court itself, and by case law, the Court can modify its pretrial o rder on a showing of good 4 cause, “A pretrial order controls the subsequent course of the action unless modified ``upon a 5 showing of good cause.'“ Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132, 1135 n. 6 1 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing ElHakem v. BJY Inc.,415 F.3d 1068, 1077 (9th Cir.2005); Zivkovic v. S. 7 Cal. Edison Co.,302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)), petition for cert. filed, 74 U.S.L.W. 3407 8 (U.S. Oct. 19, 2005) (No. 05-84); see also Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co.,400 F.3d 238, 9 245 (5th Cir.2005) (“It goes without saying that a pre-trial order controls the scope and course of 10 trial.. . .”). 11 ARGUMENT 12 The parties have exchanged discovery responses, and further supplemental responses are 13 expected. Many of the expected nine (or more) contemplated depositions have been completed, and 14 the parties are actively communicating through counsel and working to accommodate the taking of 15 said depositions. However, Plaintiff’s/Third-Party Defendants’ counsel has recently been severely 16 ill with a non-Covid viral illness, which put him out of the office for more than a week and which 17 continues to trouble him. This illness, in combination with an upcoming trial by Defendants’ 18 counsel, and with the Christmas holidays, make it almost impossible for the parties to complete 19 discovery by the currently deadlines. 20 Based on this, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants, and Defendants, each through counsel, 21 have agreed that the parties would request an extension of deadlines. Plaintiff therefore respectfully 22 asks the Court to modify the discovery deadlines as follows: 23 Deadline ECF No. 95 New Deadline 24 Requested by Parties 25 Initial ED xpis ec ro t v De ir sy c losures D Fe ec be rm uab re yr 23 81 ,, 22 00 22 21 M Ma arc yh 3 3 11 , , 2 2 00 22 22 26 Supplemental Expert March 28, 2022 June 30, 2022 Disclosures 27 Dispositive Motions May 16, 2022 August 15, 2022 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court grant the relief detailed above, as to which all 3 parties consent. 4 DATED this 6th day of December, 2021. MORLEY MASON, PLC 5 6 By: /s/ Benjamin K Mason Benjamin K. Mason 7 MORLEY MASON, PLC Attorneys for Amazing Insurance, Inc. and 8 All Third-Party Defendants 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL 2 I certify that, on December 3, 2021, and again on December 6, 2021, I communicated with 3 | John Shoreman, counsel for Defendants, wherein Mr. Shoreman represented to me that Defendants 4 || donot oppose the relief sought. Mr. Shoreman confirmed his approval of this filing via text message 5 || to me on December 6, 2021. 6 7 By: Benjamin K Mason Benjamin K Mason 8 9 □□ / 10 | IT IS SO ORDERED: “ \/ Lu 11 | Dated: December 7, 2021 AN 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28