CJ Solutions Group, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CJ SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Case No.: 19-CV-863-W-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 13 v. EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY CUT- OFF 14 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On December 4, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to 18 Complete Discovery. (Doc. No. 8.) As a threshold matter, Rule IV (E) of this Court’s 19 Civil Chambers Rules required the Parties to jointly inform Chambers of their discovery 20 request and participate in a conference with the Court before initiating any motion 21 practice. The Parties did not do so. Nevertheless, the Court declines to reject the Motion 22 and instead DENIES it without prejudice for lack of good cause. 23 The Parties’ request to modify the Court’s August 19, 2019 Discovery and Pre- 24 Trial Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 5) requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 16(b). The law makes clear that, absent this showing, a party’s request to amend an 26 operative scheduling order shall be denied. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 27 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). The good cause standard “primarily considers the 28 1 || diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Matrix Motor Co., Inc. v. Toyota Jidosha 2 || Kabushiki Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 671 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth 3 || Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court’s inquiry ends where the 4 || moving party fails to demonstrate diligence in its discovery efforts that would warrant 5 ||amending the operative scheduling order. Zivkovic, supra, 302 F.3d at 1087 (citing 6 || Johnson, supra, 975 F.2d at 609). 7 The Joint Motion is void of any substantive detail as to what good cause exists to 8 support the Parties’ request that the Court continue the December 13, 2019 fact discovery 9 || cut-off by over one month. Substantively, all that the Motion offers is counsel’s 10 || representation that “the Parties have been working cooperatively to complete discovery in 11 || the time allotted but need additional time to depose witness(es), many of whom do not 12 reside in California.” Without more, this single statement falls far short of establishing 13 || the Parties’ diligence in discovery to justify modifying the operative scheduling order. 14 || The Motion leaves the Court in the proverbial dark regarding to what extent the Parties 15 have, for example, propounded and responded to written discovery, noticed and taken 16 || depositions, and issued subpoenas, if at all. Thus, the Joint Motion lacks good cause. 17 In so finding, the Court acknowledges the Parties’ apparent cooperation with one 18 || another throughout the discovery process and encourages them to continue in that spirit. 19 || To the extent the Parties wish to renew their Motion, they may do so upon setting forth 20 || the specific factual circumstances that demonstrate their diligence and that good cause 21 || exists to support modifying the operative scheduling order to continue the fact discovery 22 || cut-off. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: December 6, 2019 Se 25 A Ss 6 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 27 28