Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02638/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02638-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 

---

1

18-cv-2638-WQH-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAYCOM PAYROLL, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

NIKKI READ,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18-cv-2638-WQH-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 

AMEND THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER 

[ECF No. 19]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties, filed on September 

16, 2019, to amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 19). For the reasons 

that follow, the Joint Motion is DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The “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).

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Discovery was available to the parties following the Rule 26(f) 

conference between counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). The required 

Case 3:18-cv-02638-WQH-MDD Document 20 Filed 09/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-2638-WQH-MDD

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

conference under Rule 26(f) occurred on February 21, 2019. (ECF Nos. 12, 

13). The Case Management Conference took place on April 11, 2019. (ECF 

No. 15). The operative Scheduling Order issued on April 17, 2019. (ECF No. 

16). The Scheduling Order provided that expert disclosures were to have 

been served no later than July 12, 2019, and rebuttal expert disclosures no 

later than August 16, 2019. Those dates passed without action by the 

parties. The discovery deadline is September 20, 2019, just 4 days after this 

Joint Motion was filed. 

The parties seek relief of all deadlines in the Scheduling Order, 

including deadlines which have passed.

DISCUSSION

The parties recognize that they must demonstrate good cause, primarily 

consisting of due diligence, as well as the Court’s consent, to support 

amendment of the Scheduling Order. For good cause, the parties state that 

scheduling issues inhibited scheduling necessary depositions – they state 

that they have been unable to schedule the deposition of a key witness 

employed by Paycom because she has been on maternity leave since May and 

will not return until November – and also state that they have not been able 

to schedule the depositions of Paycom under Rule 30(b)(6) and “crucial thirdparty witnesses.” (ECF No. 19 at 3).1 Also in support of good cause, the 

parties state that counsel have had incompatible schedules and that counsel 

for Defendant currently is preparing for a month-long trial scheduled to begin 

in early October. (Id.).

Discovery has been open since late February – nearly seven months. 

 

1 The Court will refer to page numbers supplied by CM/ECF rather than original 

pagination throughout.

Case 3:18-cv-02638-WQH-MDD Document 20 Filed 09/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-2638-WQH-MDD

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

Even if the parties did not commence discovery until after the Case 

Management Conference, discovery has been open for five months. This is 

not a complex case. The Court finds that the parties have not been diligent 

in pursuing discovery and finds good case lacking to amend the Scheduling 

Order. No good cause is provided for failing to secure the depositions of 

Defendant’s representative under Rule 30(b)(6) or the allegedly crucial thirdparties. That the lawyers have been unavailable to each other due to the 

press of other business is not good cause. Although it is good practice for the 

lawyers to confer to secure dates for depositions prior to noticing them or 

issuing subpoenas, the case schedule cannot be held hostage to these 

discussions. Depositions can be noticed under Rule 30, and subpoenas issued 

under Rule 45, without consent of the opposing party. 

Regarding the “key witness” unavailable since May because of 

maternity leave, the parties waited until four days before the close of 

discovery to seek relief. All that is said about this witness is that she was 

Defendant’s supervisor and “is privy to many of the allegations contained in 

the pleadings.” (ECF No. 19 at 4). Before extending the deadline for the two 

to three months required just to secure the testimony of this witness, the 

Court would need a more substantial showing of need and an explanation 

why this witness could not have been deposed in March or April. 

CONCLUSION

The Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is DENIED.

Dated: September 17, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02638-WQH-MDD Document 20 Filed 09/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3