Raya v. Barka ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT RAYA, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2295-WQH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RESOLVING OPPOSED JOINT MOTION AND DENYING 13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 14 DAVID BARKA; NOORI BARKA; CONTINUANCE EVELYN BARKA; CALBIOTECH, 15 INC.; CALBIOTECH, INC. 401(k) [ECF No. 80] 16 PROFIT SHARING PLAN; and CALBIOTECH, INC. PENSION PLAN, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ opposed joint motion to continue the case 20 management deadlines. ECF No. 80. Defendants seek to extend all deadlines by 90 days, 21 or vacate the operative scheduling order until certain pending motions are decided, which 22 Plaintiff opposes. Id. 23 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate 24 good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause 25 and with the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 59 at 5 (scheduling order, stating that the “dates 26 and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 27 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 28 request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a 1 specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”). 2 Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., 3 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 4 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 5 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 6 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 7 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 8 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 9 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. 10 ... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 11 Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original 12 deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 13 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 14 Both parties have recently engaged in extensive motion practice, with four motions 15 currently pending before the Court; Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Affirmative 16 Defenses (ECF No. 53) on July 29, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 17 or Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 60) on August 23, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss 18 Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 77) on September 24, and Plaintiff filed a Motion 19 for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Waiver (ECF No. 79) on October 20. Fact 20 discovery closes in this case on January 24, 2022, and expert discovery closes on 21 April 25, 2022. ECF No. 59. In the instant motion, Defendants contend that “[i]t is very 22 likely that the motions currently pending a ruling by the Court [] will entirely dispose of 23 several, if not all, of the claims currently pending. At the very least, the outcomes of each 24 of the pending motions will heavily impact the level and issues/subjects of discovery which 25 will ultimately be necessarily conducted in this action.” ECF No. 80 at 6. Thus, since 26 “[d]iscovery is an expensive and time-consuming process,” and because “requiring the 27 parties to proceed with full-fledged discovery at this time would create an undue burden 28 and cause unnecessary expense on all parties to the action,” Defendants seek to extend all 1 deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order. Id.; see also ECF No. 80-1 at 4 (“requiring the 2 parties to engage in extensive discovery and other matters related to pre-trial proceedings 3 at the present time, without the necessary knowledge on which claims will and will not 4 survive those several pending motions [], and thus on which claims and issues discovery 5 will ultimately necessary, will create an undue burden and cause unnecessary expenses to 6 be incurred by the parties to the action”); id. at 4 (“at this time Defendants cannot determine 7 the ultimate scope of necessary discovery, and given the limitations on discovery they 8 cannot afford[,] neither economically nor strategically[,] to conduct discovery on issues 9 which will ultimately have no relevance to the determination of the claims in this action”). 10 Moreover, Defendants argue that they “have been hindered in their ability to focus on 11 conducting discovery due to the extensive motion practice and briefing taking place for 12 which they have had to divert their attention and dedicate their time towards rather than 13 focusing on conducting formal discovery.” ECF No. 80-1 at 4. Therefore, Defendants seek 14 an order from the Court either (a) continuing all case management deadlines by 90 days, 15 or (b) vacating the current case schedule, to be reset following the resolution of the pending 16 dispositive motions. ECF No. 80 at 7. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request for a 17 continuance. Id. at 7–8. 18 The Court has reviewed the papers submitted, as well as the docket, and has 19 considered the arguments of both sides. The Court finds that Defendants have not shown 20 the diligence necessary to meet the good cause standard for a 90-day continuance or for 21 vacating the current case management schedule. There are currently three months 22 remaining until fact discovery closes, with time for the pending motions to be ruled on and 23 discovery to occur before the original deadline. Defendants also did not provide 24 information regarding what discovery is still outstanding, as a basis for the requested length 25 of continuance. Though the scheduling order was issued over two months ago, it appears 26 to the Court that the parties have not yet begun discovery. Thus, the Court DENIES 27 Defendants’ Motion for Continuance without prejudice. The parties may file a renewed 28 joint (or opposed joint) motion for continuance no earlier than January 5, 2022. Any 1 |/future motion for continuance must outline the reasons why specifically enumerated 2 || discovery is still outstanding and show that the parties have been diligent—i.e., the parties 3 || should commence discovery now, without waiting for the pending motions to be decided. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 6 Dated: October 26, 2021 Hitaorable feet H. Goddard 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28