Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00417/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00417-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- 08cv417-L (BLM) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSARIO JUAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOZONE STORES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv417-L (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION

TO CONTINUE DATES

[Doc. No. 46]

On August 24, 2009, the parties filed another joint motion to

continue “the discovery cut-off, Mandatory Settlement Conference,

and filing deadline for dispositive motions and other pretrial

motions.” Doc. No. 46 at 2. The Court denied a similar request on

August 13, 2009, finding that “the parties have failed to show the

requisite good cause to modify the Court’s scheduling order for the

ninth time.” Doc. No. 45 at 2-3. In the instant motion, the

parties argue that good cause exists to modify the Court’s Case

Management Order because “the parties have been working diligently”

and “it now appears, for reasons includ[ing] Defendant and its

counsel’s trial schedules, to the [p]arties that the time line set

forth in the controlling Case Management Order will not allow the

Case 3:08-cv-00417-CAB-BLM Document 47 Filed 08/26/09 Page 1 of 3
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- 08cv417-L (BLM) 

[p]arties to complete discovery, explore settlement options, or be

fully prepared for trial.” Doc. No. 46 at 2.

While the parties claim diligence, they provide no facts or

evidence to support their claim and the record belies it. As

described in the Court’s last order, this non-complex case has been

at issue since May 2008 and the Court has accommodated the parties’

requests to continue discovery deadlines at least eight times. Doc.

No. 45. In the instant request, the parties do not describe what

discovery, if any, has been completed during the last fifteen

months; they do not identify or describe any obstacles that have

prevented them from completing discovery in a timely manner; and,

they do not describe the remaining (presumably limited) discovery

that needs to be completed. Doc. No. 46. Rather, the parties

simply state that they “have made initial disclosures and

supplemented those disclosures, responded to written discovery,

depositions are moving forward or are being scheduled, and a list of

retained experts have been exchanged.” Id. at 2. Such minimal

discovery efforts over fifteen months does not constitute diligence

or establish good cause for a ninth extension of the discovery

deadlines. The fact that counsel is about to commence a trial in an

unrelated case (id.) does not rectify the lack of diligence for the

past fifteen months. Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion to

continue the discovery and pre-trial motions deadlines is DENIED. 

However, because counsel and the Defendant will be in trial,

the Court GRANTS the parties’ request to continue the Mandatory

Settlement Conference (“MSC”) currently scheduled for September 11,

2009 at 9:30 a.m. The MSC is CONTINUED to October 26, 2009 at 1:30

p.m. All requirements pertaining to the previously-set MSC,

Case 3:08-cv-00417-CAB-BLM Document 47 Filed 08/26/09 Page 2 of 3
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

 10

 11

 12

 13

 14

 15

 16

 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- 08cv417-L (BLM) 

including the requirement that all counsel and parties appear in

person, apply. Confidential settlement briefs shall be filed no

later than October 19, 2009. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 25, 2009

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00417-CAB-BLM Document 47 Filed 08/26/09 Page 3 of 3