Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 SENTYNL THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No.: 3:19-cv-1667-LAB-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE 14 v. FOR COMPLETION OF EXPERT 15 U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE WITNESS DISCOVERY COMPANY, 16 [ECF No. 67] Defendant. 17 18 19 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Completion of 21 Expert Witness Discovery. ECF No. 67. The parties seek an order from the Court extending 22 the deadline to complete expert discovery by approximately two weeks. Id. at 2. 23 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. Chmb.R. at 2 24 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 25 request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good 26 cause and with the judge’s consent”); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be 27 done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 28 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 1 || procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 2 || (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 3 ||amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 4 || Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 5 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 6 ||inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 7 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that they have encountered 8 ||scheduling conflicts in scheduling the depositions of multiple proffered experts. ECF 9 ||No. 67 at 3. The parties also represent that they have scheduled their remaining expert 10 depositions for September 8 and September 18. ECF No. 67-1 at 2. As such, the parties 11 |}request a 15-day extension of the expert discovery deadline, originally scheduled for 12 ||September 3, and do not seek to modify any other deadlines in the case. ECF No. 67 13 |} at 2-3. 14 The Court finds good cause to grant the request. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the 15 || motion as follows: 16 1. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by September 18, 2020. 17 || The parties shall comply with the same procedures as set forth in the paragraph in the 18 || Scheduling Order governing fact discovery. See ECF No. 23 at ¥ 2. 19 2. All other dates, deadlines, and procedures set forth in the Scheduling Order 20 || (ECF No. 23) remain in place, except as explicitly modified by this Order. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: August 19, 2020 0 _ArwiorwH. Xyolard Honorable Allison H. Goddard 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28