Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02524/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02524-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

STEVEN D. STEIN, Civil

No.

12-CV-2524-BTM (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION

TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY

COMPLETION DEADLINE

[ECF No. 212.]

v.

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, a

California Healthcare District; LARRY B.

ANDERSON, an individual,

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION

On the last day of the time period allotted for discovery in this case, May 30, 2014, the

parties filed a joint motion to continue the expert discovery deadline to June 30, 2014. [ECF No.

212.] The parties state in their motion that they seek a continuance to complete “the depositions

of a few defense and plaintiff experts, whose depositions are being scheduled to take place in

June, 2014.” [Id. at 2:12-14.]

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Once a scheduling order has been filed pursuant to Rule 16, the “schedule may be

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule

16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met

1 12cv2524-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 213 Filed 06/02/14 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

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes

(1983 amendment)).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER THEREON

The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint motion and finds they have not demonstrated good

cause for an open-ended continuance of the deadline for the completion of expert discovery. In their

motion, the parties fail to: (1) inform the court of how many depositions remain to be taken; (2)

identify the experts whose depositions have not yet been taken; and (3) explain why, despite the

diligence of the parties and an earlier extension giving the parties time to complete expert discovery,

they were unable to meet the deadline. The Court notes that Defendants specifically requested the

now expired May 30th deadline and Plaintiff had previously opposed any extension whatsoever. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion without prejudice. The Court will

consider a renewed motion to extend the time necessary to complete expert depositions, which the

parties contend is the reason behind their extension request, but only where the parties address the

deficiencies listed above and propose a narrowly-tailored continuance which is specific to the

outstanding depositions they have yet to complete. 

DATED: June 2, 2014

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

2 12cv2524-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 213 Filed 06/02/14 Page 2 of 2