Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02862/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02862-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441wd Removal- Wrongful Death

---

1

16cv2862-BEN-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

DEBORAH MAIORANO, 

individually, and as Successor In 

Interest to ANTHONY MAIORANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOME DEPOT USA, INC., and,

RESIN PARTNERS, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2862-BEN-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 

AMEND THE SCHEDULING 

ORDER

[ECF NO. 30]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties, filed on October 5, 

2017, to amend the Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 30). The parties seek a 4 

month continuance of the discovery cutoff and the consequent pretrial dates. 

(Id.) As provided herein, the motion is DENIED. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a schedule may be modified 

“only for good cause.” “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); Sharp v. Covenant Care 

LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012). Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., provides 

that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed, administered, 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 33 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2862-BEN-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

and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and 

inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

DISCUSSION

The Complaint originally was filed in the Superior Court for San Diego 

County on September 29, 2016, and removed to this Court on November 22, 

2016. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s decedent, Anthony 

Maiorano, died as a consequence of injuries suffered when a sawhorse 

purchased from Defendant Home Depot and manufactured by Defendant 

Resin Partners, collapsed due to defective design of the sawhorse. 

The parties conducted their required conference, pursuant to Rule 26(f), 

Fed. R. Civ. P., on January 24, 2017, and filed their Joint Discovery Plan on 

February 8, 2017. (ECF No. 12). The Early Neutral Evaluation and Case 

Management Conference was held telephonically on February 16, 2017. 

(ECF No. 17). The operative Scheduling Order was filed on February 17, 

2017. (ECF No. 18). Discovery has been open, therefore, since January 24, 

2017, following the completion of the Rule 26(f) conference. Since many 

parties do not conduct discovery until the Case Management Conference is 

held, the Court will give the parties the benefit of the doubt and say that 

discovery opened no later than February 16, 2017. 

The instant motion presents Plaintiff’s request to extend the case 

management order for 4 months primarily as a consequence of a discovery 

dispute filed the same date as this motion, October 5, 2017. (ECF No. 29). 

Defendants join in the request. (ECF No. 30 at 5). The discovery dispute has 

been resolved by an Order filed this date and does not result in substantial or 

meaningful additional discovery. (ECF No. 32). The Court finds that the 

dispute was not so substantial as to justify the instant request for additional 

time. 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 33 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2862-BEN-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

Of greater consequence, although Plaintiff did not disclose the date that 

the discovery requests were served upon Defendants, Defendants initial 

responses were served on Plaintiff on June 30, 2017. (ECF No. 29 at 2-3). 

Unless relief was provided by Plaintiff, the requests at issue were served on 

Defendants on or about May 30, 2017. See Rule 34(b)(2)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

By that point, discovery had been open for at least 3.5 months. Although 

stating that “several” percipient witness depositions have been taken and 

premises inspected, Plaintiff has not demonstrated due diligence sufficient 

for this request to be granted. 

CONCLUSION

The instant Joint Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2017

 

Case 3:16-cv-02862-BEN-MDD Document 33 Filed 10/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3