Gonzales v. Garcia ( 2020 )

I 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} ANTHONY C. GONZALEZ, Case No.: 19-cv-660-GPC-RBM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 || scnoue carer, () GRANTING DEFENDANTS EX 15 Defendant.| SCHEDULING ORDER; 16 AND 17 18 (2) FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 19 20 21 [Docs. 31, 57] 22 23 Before the Court is Defendant Nichole Garcia’s (“Defendant”) ex parte application 24 ||to amend scheduling order (“Ex Parte Motion”). (Doc. 57.) This is Defendant’s first 25 ||request to continue the dates set in the Court’s November 20, 2019 Scheduling Order 26 ||(“Scheduling Order”). (Doc. 31.) Defendant requests the Court to vacate the remaining 27 || pretrial dates in the Scheduling Order to be reset as necessary after a ruling is issued on 28 ||both parties’ pending motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 57; see Docs. 44, 51.) 1 || Alternatively, Defendant requests the dates in the Scheduling Order be continued by 2 approximately ninety days. (Doc. 57 at 1-2.) 3 Defendant alleges good cause exists to grant the continuance. A hearing on the 4 || cross-motions for summary judgment is set for November 20, 2020. (Doc. 52.) As to the 5 || November 4, 2020 mandatory settlement conference, Defendant asserts she will not be in 6 ||a position to discuss settlement until such time as the Court rules on the pending cross- 7 ||motions for summary judgment. (/d. at 2.) Defendant contends that vacating or continuing 8 Scheduling Order dates will give Defendant sufficient time to prepare and meaningfully 9 || participate in settlement discussions. (/d.) As to the remaining pretrial dates, Defendant 10 |;}contends continuing the dates will preserve judicial resources by obviating the need for 11 |/unnecessary filings or hearings. (d.) To the extent summary judgment is denied, 12 ||Defendant contends that a continuance will allow the parties additional time to explore 13 || pretrial resolution while also allowing sufficient time to prepare for trial. (d.) 14 A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and with 15 judge’s consent. FED. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 16 |Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating, “the focus of [the good cause] inquiry is 17 ||upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”). The Court notes that the 18 initial Scheduling Order was issued prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. A continuance of 19 time allows the parties additional time to prepare for trial and explore potential pretrial 20 || settlement, all while navigating litigation amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As such, 21 || good cause exists to grant a continuance of time. 22 Accordingly, the ex parte motion is GRANTED. The November 20, 2019 23 ||Scheduling Order (Doc. 31) is hereby AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 24 1. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on February 10, 25 |/2021 at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, 26 || United States Courthouse, 2003 W. Adams Ave., El Centro, CA 92243. Counsel or any 27 party representing himself or herself shall lodge confidential settlement briefs directly to 28 ||chambers by January 29, 2021. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with 1 ||the Chamber Rules of the assigned magistrate judge. The Court is in receipt of □□□□□□□□□□ 2 ||confidential settlement brief. If Plaintiff wishes to supplement his brief further, he is 3 || permitted to do so by the confidential settlement brief deadline. 4 2. Pursuant to Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, 5 ||the parties are excused from the requirement of Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(2)(a); no 6 ||Memoranda of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed. 7 3. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of FED. R. 8 ||CIv. P. 26(a)(3) by February 26, 2021. Failure to comply with disclosure requirements 9 || could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under FED. R. CIv. P. 37. 10 4. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Civil Local Rule 16.1(£)(4) 11 March 5, 2021. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 12 ||stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 13 ||exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. 14 || The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Civil Local Rule 16.1(£)(4)(c). Counsel 15 |{shall note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under FED. R. 16 ||Crv. P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial 17 ||conference order. 18 5. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 19 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By March 12, 20 2021, plaintiff's counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order 21 review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with □□□□□□□□□□□ 22 attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both parties 23 |\shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 24 6. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 25 other parties’ FED. R. CIv. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and 26 | lodged with the assigned district judge by March 19, 2021, and shall be in the form 27 || prescribed in and comply with Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 28 . l 7. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 2 ||Gonzalo P. Curiel on March 26, 2021 at 1:30pm. The Court will set a trial date during 3 pretrial conference. The Court will also schedule a motion in limine hearing date during 4 pretrial conference. 5 8. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 6 ||and magistrate judge. 7 9. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 8 || within thirty days of verdict in the case. 9 10. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 10 ||shown. 1] 11. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for 12 same motion day shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length, per party, without 13 || leave of the judge who will hear the motion. No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) 14 || pages without leave of a district court judge. Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) 15 || pages in length shall have a table of contents and a table of authorities cited. 16 12. Plaintiffs counsel shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this 17 || case hereafter. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || DATE: October 21, 2020 . 41 4ON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28