Droz v. County of San Diego ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BLAKE DROZ, Case No.: 19-CV-1277-W-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 13 v. CONTINUE DISCOVERY AND OTHER PRE-TRIAL 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; RICHARD PROCEEDINGS FISCHER; and DOES 1 through 10, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 On November 6, 2020, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue Discovery and 19 Other Pre-Trial Proceedings (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. No. 25.) The Parties requested a three- 20 month continuance of the December 11, 2020 fact discovery cut-off and all other dates 21 thereafter, as set forth in the operative July 22, 2020 Scheduling Order Regulating 22 Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings (“Scheduling Order”). (Doc. No. 24.) On 23 November 18, 2020, this Court denied the Parties’ Joint Motion without prejudice for lack 24 of good cause. (Doc. No. 26.) On November 19, 2020, the Parties renewed their Joint 25 Motion. (Doc. No. 27.) Having reviewed and considered the Parties’ latest submission, the 26 Court finds good cause underlies the Joint Motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 27 Parties’ Joint Motion in its entirety, as explained below. 28 1 At all times, the Parties must engage in discovery with diligence and a resolve to 2 meet all deadlines as established by the operative scheduling order. In seeking deadline 3 extensions, the Parties are bound by Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 (“Rule 16(b)” or “the Rule”). Rule 16(b) requires the Parties to first demonstrate their 5 diligence throughout discovery before proving up good cause for their continuance request. 6 Matrix Motor Co. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 671 (C.D. Cal. 7 2003). If the Parties fail to meet this threshold burden, the Court’s inquiry ends and the 8 Parties’ continuance request is properly denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 9 1080, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 On their second attempt at this Joint Motion, the Parties, particularly Defendant 11 County of San Diego (“the County”), have shown that they have made robust efforts to 12 meet discovery deadlines and, through no fault of their own, encountered considerable 13 impediments to timely obtaining discovery. The Court appreciates, for example, that the 14 County quickly reviewed Blake Droz’s (“Plaintiff”) first set of written discovery responses, 15 identified more information was needed, and then, “just three days after receiving the 16 response,” propounded additional written discovery. (Doc. No. 27, 2:24-28.) The Court 17 also notes the County’s ongoing and prompt communications with third-party subpoenaed 18 entities, Carlsbad Police Department, Scripps Mercy Hospital, and the California 19 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to obtain Plaintiff’s records that bear upon 20 the claims and defense at issue in this litigation. Finally, the Court acknowledges the 21 Parties’ forethought in moving for modification to the operative Scheduling Order at least 22 one month prior to the December 11, 2020 fact discovery cut-off. 23 Taken together, the above circumstances demonstrate both the Parties’ diligence in 24 discovery and good faith efforts to comply with the deadlines set forth in the operative 25 Scheduling Order. Further, given that the discovery sought is relevant and proportional to 26 the Action, and no delays in discovery were caused by the County, the Court finds good 27 cause exists to support the Parties’ Joint Motion. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS 28 the Joint Motion and continues each of the below deadlines as follows: 1 • The December 11, 2020 fact discovery cut-off is CONTINUED to March 8, 2 2021 3 • The January 15, 2021 deadline to designate experts pursuant to Federal Rule 4 of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) is CONTINUED to April 16, 2021 5 • The January 29, 2021 deadline to exchange rebuttal expert designations is 6 CONTINUED to April 30, 2021 7 • The February 26, 2021 deadline to complete expert disclosures pursuant to 8 Rules 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is 9 CONTINUED to May 21, 2021 10 • The March 26, 2021 deadline to supplement expert disclosures regarding 11 contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) is CONTINUED to June 18, 2021 13 • The April 30, 2021 expert discovery cut-off is CONTINUED to July 30, 14 2021 15 • The May 28, 2021 pre-trial motions filing cut-off is CONTINUED to August 16 27, 2021 17 • The February 8, 2021 Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) before this 18 Court is CONTINUED to May 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. and the February 1, 19 2021 deadline to lodge confidential settlement briefs is CONTINUED to 20 May 5, 2021 21 • The August 30, 2021 deadline to comply with the pre-trial disclosure 22 requirements of February Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) is CONTINUED 23 to November 30, 2021 24 • The September 6, 2021 deadline to meet and take the action required by Civil 25 Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) is CONTINUED to December 6, 2021 26 • The September 13, 2021 deadline for Plaintiff’s counsel to prepare the pre- 27 trial order and arrange the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 28 1 16.1(f) is CONTINUED to December 13, 2021 2 e The September 20, 2021 deadline to lodge with Judge Whelan the Proposed 3 Final Pretrial Conference Order is CONTINUED to December 20, 2021 4 e The September 27, 2021 Final Pre-Trial Conference is CONTINUED to 5 January 24, 2022 and 10:30 a.m. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: November 24, 2020 UN Ss 9 Hon. William V. Gallo 0 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28