Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02240/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02240-0/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

 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

THE ESTATE OF ANGEL LOPEZ,

LYDIA LOPEZ, ANGEL LOPEZ, JR.,

by and through their guardian ad litem

Lydia Lopez, and HECTOR LOPEZ, by and through their guardian ad litem

Lydia Lopez,

Civil

No.

13-CV-2240-GPC (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING JOINT

MOTION TO EXTEND

DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 25.]

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, WILLIAM

LANSDOWNE, MARK HANTEN, and

DOES 1-30,

Defendant.

On May 9, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the current June 9,

2014 discovery deadline in this matter. [ECF No. 25.] The parties seek a continuance

on the ground that they may need additional time for followup discovery after receiving

interrogatory responses, which are still outstanding. (Id. at 1:28-2:2.) However, the

parties have not provided the Court with any indication of the due date of Plaintiff’s

outstanding interrogatory responses. The parties also fail to inform the Court of the

subject matter of the outstanding interrogatory responses, what follow-up is anticipated

once responses are received and why records subpoenas cannot be sent now instead of

waiting until responses are received.

1 13cv2240-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-02240-GPC-MDD Document 26 Filed 05/12/14 PageID.<pageID> 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

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 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)). Here, the parties have

not given the Court the information it needs to determine diligence or assess the parties’

ability to meet the Court’s current June 9, 20014 deadline. Accordingly, the parties’

joint motion is DENIED without prejudice. Any future motion for an extension must

be narrowly-tailored, detailed and address the topics identified above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: May 12, 2014

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

2 13cv2240-GPC

Case 3:13-cv-02240-GPC-MDD Document 26 Filed 05/12/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2