Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02656/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02656-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1442aaf Petition for Removal - Agst members of armed forces

---

1

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

STEVE CAVNER and BETH CAVNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIRBORNE SYSTEMS NORTH 

AMERICA OF CA, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

RENEWED MOTION TO 

CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FACT 

DISCOVERY AND LATER 

DEADLINES

[ECF No. 67]

I. Background

Following denial of a Joint Motion to continue the deadlines for fact discovery and 

later deadlines, Plaintiff has filed a Renewed Motion to extend the deadlines for fact 

discovery and other deadlines. As the Court explained in its Order denying the Joint 

Moiton, this case was filed on November 25, 2015 and the first scheduling order issued 

on February 12, 2016 with fact discovery to be completed by August 12, 2016. That 

deadline was extended by 180 days at the parties’ request because of the addition of other 

parties. Now Plaintiffs seek another extension of fact discovery for an additional 90 days

as well as extensions for other deadlines. 

///

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 69 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

II. Analysis

In general, the dates and times set in the scheduling order will not be modified 

except for good cause shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (stating “[a] schedule may be 

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). The Ninth Circuit has 

explained that Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard is focused on the diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment and has stated the inquiry as follows: “[t]he district court may 

modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the 

party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 

(9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). 

In the present case, the parties have had from February 12, 2016 to the present to 

conduct discovery. In fact, the current fact discovery deadline is February 8, 2017, 

providing the parties almost a full year to complete discovery. Although Plaintiffs have 

detailed their discovery efforts in the Renewed Motion, they have failed to show 

diligence in a number of respects. For example, Plaintiffs provide no explanation why 

they waited until July 2016, five months after the case was scheduled, to propound 

written discovery to Airborne or why Plaintiffs afforded Defendant Aerostar more than 

two months in extensions to October 26, 2016 knowing they needed the responses before 

completing depositions. Similarly, Plaintiffs rely heavily on difficulty retaining an 

expert, but do not explain why they waited until June 2016 to commence looking for one. 

Nor do Plaintiffs explain why they waited until June 2016 to attempt to inspect the 

parachute unit. It appears that Plaintiffs elected not to conduct any discovery for months

and now want that time back. Finally, the Renewed Motion notes that without an 

extension Plaintiffs will be unable to depose percipient witnesses who may be deployed 

on active duty, but Plaintiffs do not indicate who they are or why those witnesses did not 

commence the process of deposing them sooner, particularly given they are military 

personnel. The parties have been aware that comparative negligence would be an issue 

since at least January 2016. (Joint Discovery Plan at 3 [ECF No. 15].) 

///

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 69 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

III. Conclusion

In these respects, Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for a continuance. 

However, because the Court is mindful of the prejudice Plaintiffs may suffer if no 

continuance is granted, the Court extends the fact discovery deadline to April 10, 2017, 

but only for the discovery identified in the Renewed Motion. The deadline remains 

February 8, 2017 for all other fact discovery. All other deadlines remain the same

because Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to extend them.

Any future motions to extend any deadlines must comply with the Court’s January 

10, 2017 Order concerning a showing of diligence as to the particular matter at issue, 

including explanation for any delays in pursing discovery relevant to the extension since 

the case was scheduled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 69 Filed 01/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3