Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01535/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01535-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

19cv1535-JAH-LL

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 ANDREW C. 

CHEN, an individual, doing business as 

TECTONICS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K.O.O. CONSTRUCTION, INC., a 

California corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1535-JAH-LL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION TO CONTINUE FACT 

DISCOVERY

[ECF No. 30]

K.O.O. CONSTRUCTION, INC., a 

California corporation,

Counter Claimant,

v.

ANDREW C. CHEN, an individual, doing 

business as TECTONICS,

Counter Defendant.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01535-JAH-LL Document 31 Filed 05/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv1535-JAH-LL

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

Currently before the Court is the parties’ joint motion requesting that the Court 

continue the deadline to complete fact discovery from June 10, 2020 to August 10, 2020. 

ECF No. 30. The parties state that this is their first request to modify the Scheduling Order, 

they have been working diligently to complete discovery, and they only require additional 

time for depositions to be taken. Id. at 2–3. The parties contend that some depositions need 

to be taken in person because (1) some depositions will include reference and review of 

extremely voluminous project plans, which “would be nearly impossible to reference” and 

“use them effectively as exhibits via a teleconference deposition”; and (2) the “architectural 

plans are far too detailed to be referenced and followed remotely” even if videoconference 

is used. Id. at 3; ECF No. 30-1, Declaration of Lauren B. Stec (“Stec Decl.”), ¶ 6. The 

parties further claim that of the eleven witnesses who need to be deposed, six are 

Defendant’s former employees and serving subpoenas “is expected to be difficult” during 

“the Coronavirus lockdown and the requirement to maintain social distancing.” 

ECF No. 30 at 3; Stec Decl. ¶ 7. 

“The district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Little v. City of 

Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). In employing the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, courts and parties are required “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Pursuant to Rule 16, the 

Court is required to issue a scheduling order that “must limit the time to join other parties, 

amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.”1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(3)(A). “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 

consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "Rule 16(b)'s 'good cause' standard primarily considers 

the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). If the moving party fails to demonstrate diligence, "the 

inquiry should end." Id.

 

1 The word “Rule” in this order refers to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless 

specified otherwise.

Case 3:19-cv-01535-JAH-LL Document 31 Filed 05/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv1535-JAH-LL

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

The Court fails to find good cause to extend the fact discovery deadline for sixty 

days. One reason for the requested extension is that serving subpoenas to six deponents 

will be difficult at this time, but the Court is not convinced by this vague and 

unsubstantiated claim. The primary reason the parties seek the continuance is because they 

hope the physical distancing and stay-at-home orders required by the current pandemic will 

be lessened to allow for in-person depositions in the near future. This, however, is pure 

speculation. It is not feasible for the Court to extend deposition deadlines until a time when 

they can be safely conducted in person because no one knows when that will occur and 

there are alternatives. Rule 30(b)(4) allows depositions to “be taken by telephone or other 

remote means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4). The Court authorizes the use of remote 

depositions by videoconference in this action, which will help secure a “just, speedy, and 

inexpensive determination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; see also Velicer v. Falconhead Capital LLC,

No. C19-1505 JLR, 2020 WL 1847773, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13, 2020) (finding no 

good cause to extend scheduling order deadlines by ninety days and urging the parties to 

consider remote depositions); Sinceno v. Riverside Church in City of New York, 

No. 18-CV-2156 (LJL), 2020 WL 1302053, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020) (authorizing 

remote depositions “[i]n order to protect public health while promoting the ‘just, speedy, 

and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding’” (citation omitted)).

The Court is not convinced that voluminous and highly detailed exhibits are a bar to 

remote videoconference depositions. Other courts have found that exhibits can be managed 

in remote depositions by sending Bates-stamped exhibits to deponents prior to the 

depositions or using modern videoconference technology to share documents and images 

quickly and conveniently. See Kaseberg v. Conaco, LLC, No. 15cv01637-JLS-DHB, 

2016 WL 8729927, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2016) (requiring a copy of exhibits intended 

to be used at a remote deposition to be sent to deponent’s attorney at least twenty-four 

hours in advance of the deposition); Carrico v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

No. 15-CV-02087-DMR, 2016 WL 1265854, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2016) (approving 

methods such as exchanging Bates-stamped documents in advance of a remote deposition 

Case 3:19-cv-01535-JAH-LL Document 31 Filed 05/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv1535-JAH-LL

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

or using modern videoconference software to share documents and images); 

Lopez v. CIT Bank, N.A., No. 15CV00759BLFHRL, 2015 WL 10374104, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Dec. 18, 2015) (disagreeing that reviewing complicated exhibits remotely would be 

impracticable because exhibits can be shared with modern videoconference software or by 

distributing Bates-stamped copies); Lott v. United States, No. C-07-3530 PJH (EMC), 

2008 WL 2923437, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2008) (finding no prejudice incurred in remote 

depositions that require reference to critical exhibits such as photographs, diagrams, and 

drawings because the exhibits may be sent to the deponent in advance of the deposition). 

While the Court is sympathetic to the challenges to the legal community during this 

pandemic, attorneys and litigants are adapting to new ways to practice law, including 

preparing for and conducting depositions remotely. Grano v. Sodexo Mgmt., Inc., No. 

18cv1818-GPC(BLM), 2020 WL 1975057, at *3 & n.5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020) 

(collecting cases). In addition to finding no good cause to extend fact discovery for sixty

days, the Court also finds the parties have not diligently sought to complete depositions 

because they are rejecting the use of remote videoconference depositions for reasons of 

convenience and not true prejudice. However, the Court, in its discretion, will allow a short 

continuance for the parties to complete depositions remotely “to secure the just, speedy, 

and inexpensive determination” of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Little v. City of 

Seattle, 863 F.2d at 685. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

PART the joint motion as follows:

The fact discovery deadline of June 10, 2020 will be extended to July 10, 2020 for 

the sole purpose of completing depositions remotely. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01535-JAH-LL Document 31 Filed 05/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4