Hall v. Marriott International, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 TODD HALL, individually and on behalf Case No.: 3:19-cv-01715-JLS-AHG of all others similarly situated, et al., 13 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 14 (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO v. 15 AMEND THE SCHEDULING MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., ORDER, and 16 Defendant. 17 (2) ISSUING FOURTH AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 18 19 [ECF No. 114] 20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion amend the scheduling order. ECF No. 21 114. The parties seek an order from the Court extending case management deadlines by 22 approximately 30 days. Id. 23 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 24 25 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 26 the judge’s consent”); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time”); ECF No. 110 at 3 (“[t]he 27 dates set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also 28 1 Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause 2 for the request”). 3 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 4 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 5 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 6 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 7 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 8 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 9 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, “a party demonstrates good 10 cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. 11 Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12 19, 2018). 13 Here, the parties have represented to the Court that the parties have been working 14 diligently to abide by the Court’s amended scheduling order (ECF No. 110), which set the 15 class discovery cutoff for November 1 and the class certification motion filing deadline for 16 December 16. ECF No. 114 at 3. Due to various scheduling conflicts, the parties need more 17 time to complete the depositions of Costco, former-Plaintiff Julie Drassinower, 18 former-Plaintiff Jesse Heineken, Plaintiff George Abelsayed, Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) 19 witness, former-employee Jeffrey Wolff, and current-employee Alexander Pyhan. Id. at 3; 20 ECF No. 114-1 at 2–3. Hence, the parties seek an order from the Court extending all case 21 management deadlines by approximately 30 days. 22 The Court appreciates that the parties have been working together and finds that the 23 parties have demonstrated the diligence necessary to meet the good cause standard. 24 Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion and issues the following amended scheduling 25 order: 26 1. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be 27 completed by December 1, 2021. “Completed” means that all discovery requests governed 28 by Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under 1 Rule 45, must be propounded sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date so that 2 they may be completed by that date, taking into account the time permitted in the Rules 3 for service, notice, and responses. If any discovery disputes arise, counsel must meet and 4 confer promptly and in good faith in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to 5 comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 6 order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 7 recognized by the Court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all 8 disputes without court intervention through the meet-and-confer process. If the parties 9 reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must email chambers at 10 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of service of the 11 written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the 12 Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed 13 times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral 14 statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each parties’ 15 position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may 16 be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the 17 movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply 18 with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, which can be found 19 on the district court website. 20 2. Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by January 18, 2022.1 21 3. Within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class certification, the 22 parties must jointly contact the Court via email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to 23 arrange a further case management conference. 24 / / 25 / / 26 27 1 Should Plaintiffs not file a class certification motion, they must notify the Court via email 28 1 4. The dates set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown. IT IS SO ORDERED. WlDated: October 19, 2021 H. Kado A , Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28