Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01523/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01523-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-1523-LAB-AHG

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

RASHID ADAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO; OFFICER 

JASON LANGLEY; and DOES 1–10,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1523-LAB-AHG

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE 

DISCOVERY DEADLINES

[ECF No. 16]

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines. ECF

No. 16. There, the parties jointly requested that the Court extend discovery deadlines by 

approximately three months. Id.

Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16(b) must demonstrate 

good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause 

and with the judge’s consent”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance 

requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b) (“When 

an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend 

the time”). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 

procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 

Case 3:19-cv-01523-LAB-AHG Document 18 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:19-cv-1523-LAB-AHG

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

(9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 

amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

Here, the parties have represented to the Court that the parties have exchanged 

written discovery but were unable to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition due to conflicts on 

both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s counsel’s calendars. ECF No. 16 at 2. The parties have 

discussed resetting party depositions in March or April. Id. Additionally, the parties have 

represented that they would like the opportunity to discuss settlement before extensive 

attorney fees and costs are incurred. Id. 

As an initial matter, the parties’ motion is deficient. First, fact discovery closed on 

February 24, 2020, (see ECF No 10 at 1), but the instant motion to continue the fact 

discovery deadline, among others, was filed on March 3, 2020. ECF No. 16. By filing the 

motion eight days after the date of the affected deadline, the parties failed to follow the 

Court’s Chambers Rules. See Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that “[a]ll requests for continuances 

must be made by a joint motion no less than seven calendar days before the affected date”)

(emphasis added). The Court expresses its deep concern in the parties’ blatant disregard 

for the Court’s Chambers Rules.

Second, the parties failed to provide a declaration from counsel, as required by the 

Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that the joint motion for continuance 

include a “declaration from counsel seeking the continuance that describes the steps taken 

to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot 

be met”). The Court will take the parties at their word without the required declaration, but 

will not do so again.1

 

1

“There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with 

their lawful orders . . .” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966); see CivLR 

83.1 (authorizing imposition of sanctions based on a party’s failure to comply with a court 

order). 

Case 3:19-cv-01523-LAB-AHG Document 18 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:19-cv-1523-LAB-AHG

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

Despite the joint motion’s shortcomings, upon review of the record, the Court finds 

good cause to extend the deadlines set forth in the scheduling order.

Thus, the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

1. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by May 28, 2020. 

2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 

June 24, 2020. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by July 24, 2020. 

3. By June 24, 2020, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 

Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 

evidence under Rule 26(a)(2)(D) by July 24, 2020.

5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by August 21, 2020.

6. All other pretrial motions must be filed by September 28, 2020.

7. The parties must abide by all other mandatory procedures set forth in the 

Court’s initial Scheduling Order. See ECF No. 10.

8. In the instant motion, the parties did not seek to continue the Mandatory 

Settlement Conference or Pre-Trial dates. See ECF No. 16 at 1–2 (“The parties seek a 

continuance of the following dates: Fact Discovery ..., Expert Discovery ..., Rebuttal 

Expert Exchange ..., Expert Discovery ..., Pretrial Motions”). Thus, the remainder of the 

dates and deadlines set forth in the Court’s October 18, 2019 Scheduling Order (ECF 

No. 10) remain in place, except as explicitly modified by this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01523-LAB-AHG Document 18 Filed 03/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3