Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01195/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01195-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of Removal

---

1

19-CV-1195-GPC-WVG

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

MARISA MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-1195-GPC-WVG

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 

CONTINUE EXPERT DISCLOSURE 

DATE

On March 2, 2020, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue the Expert Disclosure 

Date. (Doc. No. 14.) The Parties move the Court to continue (1) the March 6, 2020 expert 

disclosure deadline, as set by the operative Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 5), to April 20, 

2020; (2) the April 3, 2020 supplemental and/or rebuttal expert disclosures deadline to May 

18, 2020; and (3) the May 1, 2020 expert discovery cut-off to June 15, 2020. Based on the 

Parties’ representations, the primary impetus for the Joint Motion appears to be Plaintiff’s 

expert’s unavailability to complete her expert report by the deadline provided in the 

Scheduling Order due to her two-week vacation beginning in March 2020. (Doc. No. 14, 

2:24-27.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Parties’ Joint Motion. 

Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides an operative scheduling 

order may only be amended for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The good cause standard 

Case 3:19-cv-01195-WVG Document 15 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-1195-GPC-WVG

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

is informed by the parties’ diligence throughout discovery. Lerma-Mayoral v. City of El 

Centro, 2017 WL 1807905, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2017); Zivkovic v. S. California Edison 

Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Absent a showing of diligence, the Court’s 

inquiry ends, and the timetable the operative scheduling order establishes remains binding. 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.1992); Matrix Motor 

Co. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 671 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2003).

The Parties have failed to meet the standard set forth in Rule 16(b). The Joint Motion 

lacks any explanation regarding when Plaintiff’s counsel first became aware of Plaintiff’s 

expert’s unavailability to complete the expert report in compliance with the operative 

scheduling order. In that vein, the Joint Motion does not suggest Plaintiff’s counsel even 

considered retaining alternative experts with greater availability in an effort to meet the

Court’s deadline, or why such consideration was not possible. The Joint Motion also fails 

to explain why the Parties waited to bring their Joint Motion just four days before the expert 

disclosure deadline on March 6, 2020.

Moreover, the Joint Motion contradicts the Parties’ representation in their January 

16, 2020 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order that their requested continuance of the 

fact discovery cut-off “would not affect the remainder of the dates and deadlines in the 

Scheduling Order.” (Doc. No. 10, 3:10-21.) At the time, the Court relied on the Parties’ 

representation when it granted the Parties’ January 16, 2020 Joint Motion and extended the 

fact discovery cut-off in its January 22, 2020 Order (Doc. No. 12) following a discovery 

conference on the matter earlier that day. Now, the Parties represent otherwise and seek to 

set back three additional dates in the August 23, 2019 Scheduling Order, all without 

establishing exactly how they have applied their best efforts to meet the expert discoveryrelated dates set forth in the Scheduling Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01195-WVG Document 15 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2