Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02097/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02097-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

15-CV-2097-AJB-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

MARK COVERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-CV-2097-AJB-WVG

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO 

EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 

[ECF No. 15] AND AMENDED JOINT 

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 

DEADLINES [ECF No. 16]

I. BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 16(b). (ECF No. 11.) On June 1, 2016, plaintiff Mark 

Covert (“Plaintiff”) and defendants City of San Diego, Officer C. Bernard, and Officer 

Crawford (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines

(“Joint Motion I”). (ECF No. 13.) In Joint Motion I, the parties requested the Court 

extend the following dates: (1) fact discovery cutoff to August 31, 2016; (2) designation 

of experts to September 21, 2016; (3) disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) 

to October 5, 2016; (4) designation of rebuttal experts and disclosures to October 26, 

2016; (5) expert discovery cutoff to November 29, 2016; and (6) last day to file pre-trial 

motions to December 23, 2016. (Id. at 3-4.) The basis for the request in Joint Motion I 

Case 3:15-cv-02097-AJB-WVG Document 17 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

15-CV-2097-AJB-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

was there were unresolved discovery disputes, previously scheduled vacations of counsel, 

difficulties scheduling depositions of Plaintiff’s daughters who reside outside the country, 

and Defendant requiring additional time to locate and produce documentation responsive 

to Plaintiff’s demands. (Id. at 2-3.) Additionally, the parties indicated they had discussed 

whether the Complaint should be amended and noted that additional time may allow 

further opportunity to settle. (Id.) On June 3, 2016, for good cause, the Court granted 

Joint Motion I. (ECF No. 14.)

On August 23, 2016, the parties filed another Joint Motion to Extend Discovery 

Deadlines (“Joint Motion II”). (ECF No. 15.) In Joint Motion II, the parties request the 

Court extend the following dates: (1) fact discovery cutoff to September 30, 2016; (2) 

designation of experts to October 31, 2016; (3) disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) to November 10, 2016; (4) designation of rebuttal 

experts and disclosures to November 26, 2016; (5) expert discovery cutoff to December 

29, 2016; and (6) last day to file pre-trial motions to January 13, 2017. (Id. at 3.) The 

basis for the request in Joint Motion II is that there are unresolved discovery disputes, 

previously scheduled vacations of counsel and parties, difficulties scheduling depositions 

of Plaintiff’s daughters who reside outside the country, and Defendant requiring 

additional time to locate and produce documentation responsive to Plaintiff’s demands. 

(Id. at 2.) Additionally, the parties have indicated this time will allow further opportunity 

to pursue a settlement of the matter. (Id. at 2-3.)

On August 26, 2016, the parties filed an Amended Joint Motion to Extend 

Discovery Deadlines (“Amended Motion”). (ECF No. 16.) The Amended Motion

reiterates the request made in Joint Motion II but additionally sought to continue the 

Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) currently scheduled for September 7, 2016 

to September 16, 2016. (Id. at 3-4.)1

 

1 The parties have indicated September 16, 2016 is the date by which Plaintiff’s FRCP 68 offer expires.

(See ECF No. 16 at 3.)

Case 3:15-cv-02097-AJB-WVG Document 17 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

15-CV-2097-AJB-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

II. RULING

The Court does not find good cause to grant this request and hereby DENIES the 

Joint Motion without prejudice for the reasons set forth below.

A. NO GOOD CAUSE SHOWN

Pursuant to FRCP 16(b)(3), a district court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling 

order that “must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete 

discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). The scheduling order “controls 

the course of the action unless the court modifies it [ ]” and FRCP “16 is to be taken 

seriously.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 

1994). Indeed, parties must “diligently attempt to adhere to [the Court’s] schedule 

throughout the subsequent course of the litigation.” Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 

605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999). “A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 

entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded without peril.’” Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case 

Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 141 (D. Me. 1985)).

FRCP 16(b)(4) “provides that a district court’s scheduling order may be modified 

upon a showing of ‘good cause,’ an inquiry which focuses on the reasonable diligence of 

the moving party.” Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2007); citing 

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal explained,

...Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily concerns 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 

amendment)...[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons 

for seeking modification...If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end.

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

In part, the “good cause” standard requires the parties to demonstrate that 

Case 3:15-cv-02097-AJB-WVG Document 17 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

15-CV-2097-AJB-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

“noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred or will occur, notwithstanding her 

diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have 

been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 Scheduling 

conference...” Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 608.

The Court finds that neither Joint Motion II nor the Amended Motion demonstrate 

good cause. Joint Motion II and the Amended Motion are virtual carbon copies of Joint 

Motion I. Nearly three months ago, the parties listed the same problems along with the 

same promises to work toward resolving the various issues. Then, as now, the parties claim 

to be “diligently conducting discovery.” (ECF No. 13 at 2, ECF No. 15 at 2, ECF No. 16 

at 2.) Then, as now, the parties claim to be “actively and diligently engaged in ongoing 

settlement discussions... [and if] given more time to explore settlement” they may be able 

to resolve the case. (ECF No. 13 at 3, ECF No. 15 at 2-3, ECF No. 16 at 3.) The Court 

granted the parties their desired extension of time three months ago, yet it seems they are 

no closer to a resolution and the same discovery still needs to be accomplished. The parties 

have squandered the extra time and opportunity they were given. It is clear to the Court 

that, contrary to the promises to diligently pursue discovery or resolve issues made in Joint 

Motion I, the parties have not been productive as there has been no discernable progress 

made in resolving issues that pose obstacles to discovery or resolution of the case.

The parties have also requested the Court continue the MSC to September 16, 2016

to coincide with the expiration of Plaintiff’s FRCP 68 offer, which was extended by 

Plaintiff on August 12, 2016. (ECF No. 16 at 3.) Defendants have not provided any reason 

why they are unable to accept or decline Plaintiff’s offer by the currently scheduled MSC. 

The Court believes that Defendants have had sufficient time to consider the offer and make 

a decision by the currently scheduled MSC date of September 7, 2016. If Defendants are 

unable to accept an offer after having reviewed it for over three weeks, the Court does not 

see how an additional nine days will be fruitful. Deadlines have a way of concentrating the 

mind, and the Court believes the September 7, 2016 MSC date will provide the needed 

incentive for both parties to engage in serious settlement discussions and reach a fair 

Case 3:15-cv-02097-AJB-WVG Document 17 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

15-CV-2097-AJB-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

resolution.

Lastly, the Court notes the parties may be in violation of this Court’s order requiring 

the parties to bring discovery disputes to the attention of the Court no later than thirty days 

following the date upon which the event giving rise to the discovery dispute occurred. (See 

ECF No. 11 at 2-3.)

III. CONCLUSION

Given the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES both Joint Motion II and the 

Amended Motion without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02097-AJB-WVG Document 17 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5