Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00114/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00114-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

DAVID CHAO, M.D., OASIS MSO, INC. AND

DAVID J. CHAO, MD, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., SMITH &

NEPHEW, PLC, AND DOES 1-10,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13CV114-H (BLM)

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION

TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE FOR

PARTIES TO EXCHANGE EXPERT

LISTS AND EXPERT DISCLOSURES

[ECF No. 18]

On August 7, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Court continue

the deadline for the parties to exchange expert lists and expert disclosures. ECF No. 18. 

In support, the partes state that they have been preparing for the filing of Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment on a case dispositive issue which will be filed “in the next

few weeks,” and that a continuation would allow them to “focus on the Summary Judgment

motion and avoid expert expenses which may ultimate prove unnecessary at this juncture.” 

Id. at 2-3.

Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified

only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also ECF

No. 12 at 7 (stating that dates “will not be modified except for good cause shown”). The

Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the moving party. 

13CV114-H (BLM)

Case 3:13-cv-00114-H-BLM Document 19 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 2
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

Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. Quaker Oats

Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be

modified for “good cause” based primarily on diligence of moving party). Essentially, “the

focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court also

may consider the “existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification

. . . .” Id.

Here, the parties made a similar request during the telephonic Early Neutral

Evaluation Conference. After consulting the district judge, the Court held a telephonic Case

Management Conference with counsel for both parties on March 29, 2013. ECF No. 11. 

During the conference, the Court informed the parties that the case management dates and

deadlines would not be continued to facilitate the filing of a summary judgment motion or

to wait for a ruling on a summary judgment motion. Also, while the parties only request

that four deadlines be continued, the reality of the request is that all dates would have to

be continued if the parties’ request was granted. The Court does not find that the parties

have demonstrated good cause for their request or been reasonably diligent given that they

have been aware of the Court’s position and the relevant deadlines since late March. 

Accordingly, the parties joint motion is DENIED. All dates and deadlines shall remain as

previously set. See ECF No. 12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2013

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

-2- 13CV114-H (BLM)

Case 3:13-cv-00114-H-BLM Document 19 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 2