Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00803/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00803-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:3131 Bonds of contractors of public buildings

---

1

17-CV-803-CAB-WVG

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for the 

Use and Benefit of: MCCULLOUGH 

PLUMBING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HALBERT CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY, INC., et al,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIM, 

COUNTERCLAIMS, AND THIRDPARTY COMPLAINTS.

Case No.: 17-CV-803-CAB-WVG

ORDER DENYING JOINT 

STIPULATION REGARDING 

CONTINUANCE OF EXPERT 

DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY 

DEADLINES [ECF NO. 63]

Presently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation which requests the Court

again modify the scheduling order.1(ECF No. 63.) The parties request the Court continue

the date by which fact discovery must be completed, the designation and reporting of expert

 

1 On August 24, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ first joint motion to continue fact and expert discovery 

deadlines. (See ECF No. 49.)

Case 3:17-cv-00803-CAB-WVG Document 67 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-CV-803-CAB-WVG

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

witnesses, the mandatory settlement conference, as well as the pretrial motions deadline.

(Id. at 19-28.) The parties specifically note that this request “moves the deadline for pretrial motions in order to correspond with other discovery deadlines, which was

inadvertently missed in the first request.” (Id. at 10-12.) This statement is disingenuous at

best and misleading at worst.

On August 20, 2018, the parties filed their first joint motion to continue various fact

and expert discovery deadlines. (ECF No. 46.) After reviewing the motion, the Court noted

that the parties’ proposed discovery deadlines were after dispositive pretrial motions were

due to be filed. On August 22, 2018, the research attorney for the undersigned emailed the

parties, alerting them to the potentially problematic request. The research attorney asked

the parties if they preferred to have “any extended discovery dates be set to end prior to the

dispositive motion deadline” or, in the alternative, “to continue the dispositive motion

deadline.” On August 23, 2018, Patrick McManus, attorney of record for Halbert

Construction Co., Inc., replied that “[a]ll parties are fine with Judge Gallo signing the

motion [sic] as is,” which indicated the parties did not wish to continue the date by which

dispositive motions must be filed. While the deadline to file pretrial motions may have

been technically “inadvertently missed in the first request,” the parties were given an

opportunity to have that date continued in order to correspond with other discovery

deadlines and declined to do so.

The Court concludes by noting the present Joint Stipulation is completely devoid of

any cause, let alone good cause, to justify continuing any portion of the scheduling order.

For this reason, the Court DENIES the request. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00803-CAB-WVG Document 67 Filed 11/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2