Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00688/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00688-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

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

ATLEY HENRY, LAURA HENRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

TRIAL RELATED DATES AND 

DEADLINE TO SUBMIT JOINT 

MOTION FOR DETERMINTATION 

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE

[ECF No. 48]

Before the Court is the parties’ joint stipulation to extend the deadline to submit 

Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 3, as well as continue dates as 

set forth in the Scheduling Order. ECF No. 48. 

A. Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 3

The parties have previously requested and been granted an extension of time, until 

April 27, 2018, to file a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 3

(“Discovery Dispute”). ECF No. 46. The parties now request an additional extension, 

until May 15, 2018 to file their Discovery Dispute. ECF No. 48. The parties represent 

that production of documents related to that dispute occurred, and review is underway. 

Case 3:17-cv-00688-JM-NLS Document 49 Filed 04/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS

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

Id. at 3. The parties also represent they have agreed to continue both depositions and the 

Discovery Dispute filing deadline in order to permit additional time to produce any 

outstanding documents, a privilege log, and supplemental responses. Id. 

The Court finds the parties present good cause to extend the deadline for filing and 

GRANTS the parties until May 15, 2018 to submit the Discovery Dispute. 

B. Amend the Scheduling Order

The parties have also agreed and request that the Court amend the Scheduling 

Order (ECF No. 31) because the parties “are in the process of scheduling a private 

mediation” and desire to “focus on settlement.” ECF No 48 at 3. 

A request to modify the scheduling order is governed by Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 16(b)(4) and “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.” The Court encourages the parties to discuss settlement, however, pursuit of 

settlement is not hindered by the Scheduling Order and the parties present no good cause 

to extend the dates as set forth in the current Scheduling Order- the first of which remains 

over two months away (Fact Discovery cut off of July 13, 2018). See ECF No. 31. The 

request to amend the Scheduling Order is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 30, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00688-JM-NLS Document 49 Filed 04/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2