Davis v. City of National City ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAMMY DAVIS, et al., Case No.: 3:19-cv-00534-AJB-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 13 v. CONTINUE PRETRIAL DATES 14 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, et al., [ECF No. 42] 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Third Joint Motion to Continue 18 Pretrial Dates (ECF No. 42), which seeks to amend the Scheduling Order in this case to 19 extend certain pretrial deadlines by approximately two months. 20 Plaintiffs filed this action on March 20, 2019. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs bring claims 21 against two sets of Defendants, the “City Defendants” and the “County Defendants.”1 All 22 but two of the City Defendants filed an Answer on June 10, 2019, and the remaining two 23 City Defendants, Manuel Rodriguez and Dennis Leach, filed their Answer on August 16, 24 25 1 The City Defendants include City of National City, Joseph B. Camacho, Giovanni 26 Corado, Gabriel Gonzalez, Robert Rude, Chad Sakamoto, Mark Segal, Manuel 27 Rodriguez, and Dennis Leach. The County Defendants include Deputy Davis Benner, Deputy Jose De La Torre, Deputy Shiloh Frantz, Deputy Stephen Krieg, Deputy Gregory 28 1 2019. ECF Nos. 7, 12. The County Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an 2 answer on November 5, 2019, which remains pending. ECF No. 16. In the motion, the 3 County Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. Id. at 17-18. 4 Following an Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference, this 5 Court entered an initial Scheduling Order in this matter. ECF No. 26. The parties 6 subsequently requested two extensions of the pretrial deadlines, which this Court granted. 7 ECF Nos. 36, 41. Now, the parties seek a third continuance of the Scheduling Order as 8 follows: 9 • Extension of fact discovery deadline from November 14, 2020 to 10 January 14, 2021; 11 • Extension of expert disclosure deadline from October 30, 2020 to 12 December 30, 2020; 13 • Extension of initial expert report deadline from November 13, 2020 to 14 January 14, 2021; 15 • Extension of rebuttal expert disclosure deadline from November 30, 2020 to 16 January 29, 2021; 17 • Extension of rebuttal expert report deadline from December 16, 2020 to 18 February 16, 2021; 19 • Extension of expert discovery deadline from January 15, 2021 to 20 March 16, 2021; 21 • Extension of deadline to file dispositive motions from February 12, 2021 to 22 April 12, 2021. 23 24 The parties do not seek any extension of the remaining pretrial deadlines in the 25 Amended Scheduling Order. ECF No. 42 at 6. 26 The Scheduling Order may be modified only for good cause and with the Court’s 27 consent. Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4). “‘Good cause’” is a non-rigorous standard that has been 28 construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 1 Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence 2 of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking 3 modification. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 4 1992). (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 5 modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation 6 omitted). 7 Here, the parties explain that they have encountered delays in completing discovery 8 due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. ECF No. 42 at 4. Though their motion restates 9 many of the same arguments made in their last motion for extension of time, the parties 10 have conducted additional discovery since this Court’s last scheduling order. Specifically, 11 County Defendants served subsequent subpoenas in August based on materials received in 12 response to their initial round of subpoenas and depositions.2 Id. Likewise, the parties have 13 completed six or seven depositions and are in the process of scheduling twelve more. Id. 14 at 5. The parties state that they have been pursuing written discovery diligently since the 15 Court’s ruling on their last extension request, though it is unclear exactly what additional 16 written discovery (aside from the subpoenas) has occurred. All of this has taken place while 17 counsel continue to experience the challenges of working from home while caring for and 18 educating small children. Id. at 4-5. 19 Upon due consideration, the Court finds the parties have shown good cause for the 20 requested extensions and accordingly GRANTS the Joint Motion (ECF No. 42). The 21 parties have acted diligently in completing additional written discovery, as well as 22 depositions, despite the ongoing challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. The 23 Court also is cognizant of the fact that the parties face delays out of the ordinary course, 24 such as in obtaining subpoenaed records, because the custodians also are experiencing 25 pandemic-related challenges. 26 27 2 County Defendants do note, however, that custodians of records have requested 28 l Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Order is amended 2 follows: 3 (1) The fact discovery deadline is extended to January 14, 2021; 4 (2) The expert disclosure deadline is extended to December 30, 2020; 5 (3) The initial expert report deadline is extended to January 14, 2021; 6 (4) The rebuttal expert disclosures deadline is extended to January 29, 2021; 7 (5) The rebuttal expert report deadline is extended to February 16, 2021; 8 (6) The expert discovery deadline is extended to March 16, 2021. 9 (7) The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended to April 12, 2021. 10 All other deadlines and requirements set forth in the Court’s Amended Scheduling 11 || Order (ECF No. 36) remain in place. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: October 7, 2020 4 _ArwioonH. Kovolar Honorable Allison H. Goddard 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28