Devillena v. American States Preferred Ins. Co. ( 2023 )

11 NICHOLAS J. BOOS (SBN 233399) nboos@maynardnexsen.com 22 MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1450 33 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 646-4700 44 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 55 Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN STATES PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY 66 77 SHAHID MANZOOR (SBN 296862) shahid@manzoorlawoffice.com 88 MANZOOR LAW FIRM, INC. 3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 104 99 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 306-1665 1100 Facsimile: (916) 244-9852 1111 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARJORIE S. DEVILLENA 1122 1133 1144 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1155 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1166 MARJORIE S. DEVILLENA, Case No. 2:22-cv-00261-KJM-AC 1177 Plaintiff, 1188 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO v. MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 1199 AMERICAN STATES PREFERRED 2200 INSURANCE COMPANY, AND ADAM PRITCHARD AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND 2211 DOES 1-20 INCLUSIVE, 2222 Defendants. 2233 Pursuant to Local Rule 143, Plaintiff Marjorie S. Devillena and Defendant American 2244 States Preferred Insurance Company (“American States”) hereby stipulate and ask the Court to 2255 modify certain deadlines previously set by this Court in its Scheduling Order (ECF 23) for the 2266 good cause set forth below. In support of their request, the Parties state as follows: 2277 WHEREAS, “[t]he district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and 2 with the judge’s consent.” “Rule 16(b)'s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence” 3 of the parties. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it 4 cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. at 609. 5 Prejudice in the absence of an extension can also be considered. Matrix Motor Co. v. Toyota 6 Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 671 (C.D. Cal. 2003) 7 WHEREAS, though the Parties have diligently pursued and cooperated in this case, the 8 current deadlines cannot be reasonably met. The Parties have conducted depositions, exchanged 9 written discovery, and produced documents. Despite this diligence, there are several 10 circumstances that justify an extension of the current fact and expert discovery deadlines (June 2, 11 2023 and June 16, 2023, respectively), and a corresponding extension of the dispositive motion 12 hearing deadline (currently September 15, 2023). 13 WHEREAS, the Parties have pending discovery disputes including American States’ 14 pending motion to compel Plaintiff’s further production of documents (ECF 52) and Plaintiff’s 15 motions to compel American States’ further production of documents and for leave to take a 16 second 30(b)(6) deposition of American States (ECF 56). 17 WHEREAS, on May 24, 2023, the Parties participated in an informal discovery 18 conference with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Allison Claire regarding several pending 19 discovery disputes (ECF 55). 20 WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Claire declined to make any rulings outside the process 21 contemplated by Local Rule 251 (ECF 55), and so Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of a 22 motion to compel (ECF 56) under Local Rule 251. 23 WHEREAS, despite the Parties timely participating in discovery, current deadlines in this 24 action for fact and expert discovery are set to expire before the pending discovery disputes can be 25 resolved. 26 WHEREAS, the Parties will be participating in a mediation on June 7, 2023. This 27 separately supports a finding of good cause. Mediation provides the potential for settlement of 1 additional money, time, and resources” that may not be necessary constitutes prejudice and gives 2 rise to good cause for an extension. Sanchez v. Stryker Corp., 2012 WL 13006186, at *5 (C.D. 3 Cal. Mar. 28, 2012). 4 WHEREAS, the Parties have not previously requested any modification of the Scheduling 5 Order. 6 WHEREAS, the Parties respectfully submit that good cause exists for an extension of the 7 non-expert discovery cutoff for the subjects of the pending discovery disputes only and issues 8 arising therefrom, and for extensions of the expert deadlines and the dispositive motion hearing 9 deadline. 10 THEREFORE, the Parties have stipulated to, and respectfully request the Court’s approval 11 of, a modification of the following deadlines as follows: 12 13 Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline 14 Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off 6/2/23 8/11/23 (for subjects of 15 pending discovery disputes 16 and issues arising therefrom) 17 Expert Disclosure (Initial) 6/16/23 8/25/23 18 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) 7/7/23 9/15/23 19 Expert Discovery Cut-Off 7/28/23 10/6/23 20 Last Day to Hear Dispositive 9/15/23 11/30/23 21 Motions 22 23 For the reasons stated herein, the Parties respectfully request the Court enter an order 24 modifying the deadlines as set out above. 25 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 26 27 1 Dated: May 26, 2023 MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 2 /s/ Nicholas J. Boos 3 By: NICHOLAS J. BOOS 4 Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN STATES PREFERRED 5 INSURANCE COMPANY 6 Dated: May 26, 2023 MANZOOR LAW FIRM, INC. 7 8 /s/ Shahid Manzoor By: SHAHID MANZOOR 9 SACHIN KALRA 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARJORIE S. DEVILLENA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to Stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the scheduling || order in this case be modified as follows: 6 Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off 6/2/23 8/11/23 (for subjects of 7 pending discovery disputes 8 and issues arising therefrom) 10 13 Motions 14 Id IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 31, 2023. 17 , / 18 19 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28