Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00670/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00670-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1 

16-CV-670-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 

KEVIN LUCORE et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v. 

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA et al., 

 Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-CV-670-WVG 

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 

TO CONTINUE 

[Doc. No. 25.] 

For the third time, the parties have asked the Court to continue discovery-related 

deadlines in this case. On December 14, 2016, the parties asked for a 2-month extension 

of fact and expert discovery deadlines and related dates. [Doc. No. 19.] Then on February 

2, 2017, they asked for another 6-week extension of the same deadlines. [Doc. No. 23.] 

With respect to discovery extensions, the Court’s Chambers Rules state: “The Court 

disfavors continuances, but is amenable to such requests if good cause is shown. Good 

cause includes, among other things, a showing that the parties have been diligent and have 

not been dilatory.” 

Cumulatively, the three Scheduling Orders in this case have allowed 9 months for 

fact discovery, which is longer than ordinarily afforded other non-complex cases. The 

Court accommodated the parties’ past requests despite making explicit in its Chambers 

Case 3:16-cv-00670-WVG Document 26 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 2 

16-CV-670-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

Rules that continuances are disfavored. The Court also expected the parties would 

conclude the discovery process and would not make additional requests. Not only is this 

case not complex, it is quite straightforward and should not have required as much time as 

the Court has granted. Nine months to complete discovery should have been sufficient. 

Given the nature of the case, the length of time granted for discovery, and in light of 

the two prior extensions the Court granted, the parties have not been diligent in completing 

whatever discovery is left to be done. Deadlines have a purpose and concentrate the mind 

on the task at hand. It is time for the parties to focus on concluding what discovery remains 

in the time that remains in this non-complex case. Accordingly, good cause does not exist, 

and the parties’ request is DENIED.1

 All dates in the Second Amended Scheduling Order 

shall remain as set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 30, 2017 

 

1

 The Court understands the parties’ request is also based, in part, on conflicts with other 

matters. However, the Court has the discretion and right to manage its calendar. As the 

State courts have exercised their discretion and have denied requests to alter hearings 

before them, this Court does the same.

Case 3:16-cv-00670-WVG Document 26 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2