Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01993/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01993-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

1

18-cv-1993-W-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL HARNER,

Plaintiff, 

v.

USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY 

CO.,

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18-cv-1993-W-MDD

ORDER DENYING JOINT 

MOTION TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULING ORDER

[ECF NO. 15]

Before the Court is the Joint Motion of the parties, filed on December 

30, 2019, to modify the scheduling order to allow Defendant to file a motion to 

compel regarding Plaintiff’s production of documents no later than January 

30, 2020. (ECF No. 15). 

Discovery closed on November 29, 2019. (ECF No. 11). Although the 

parties sought and received a continuance of their mandatory settlement 

conference, no reference was made to a continuing discovery dispute. (ECF 

Nos. 12, 13). In their motion to continue the settlement conference, filed on 

November 22, 2019, the parties noted that certain depositions were set for 

December 2019, but there was no request to extend the discovery deadline to 

Case 3:18-cv-01993-LL-MDD Document 16 Filed 01/02/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-1993-W-MDD

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

accommodate those depositions nor the resolution of any pending discovery 

dispute. (ECF No. 12).

Section V.C.2 of this Court’s Civil Chambers Rules provides:

2. Timing of Discovery Motions - The 30-day Rule

Any motion related to discovery disputes must be filed

no later than thirty (30) days after the date upon which the

event giving rise to the dispute occurred. For oral discovery,

the event giving rise to the dispute is the completion of the

transcript of the relevant portion of the deposition. For

written discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery

dispute is the date of service of the response, not the date on

which counsel reach an impasse in meet and confer efforts.

If the meet and confer process or attempts to supplement

disputed responses will extend the dispute beyond 30 days, a

motion, preferably a joint motion, to extend the deadline

must be filed.

The Joint Motion filed by the parties does not state when the underlying 

discovery requests were served nor when the initial responses were served, 

giving rise to the discovery dispute. And, as noted above, the parties did not 

seek relief from the Court in the form of a motion to extend the 30-day 

deadline. 

Modification of the scheduling order, under Rule 16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. 

P., requires good cause. The standard for good cause under this Rule 

primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the modification. See 

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

Here, there is no basis provided for the Court to find that Defendant has been 

diligent in seeking this discovery and no justification provided for not timely 

seeking relief from the Court. The scheduling order will not be amended. 

Discovery remains closed. 

//

Case 3:18-cv-01993-LL-MDD Document 16 Filed 01/02/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-1993-W-MDD

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

CONCLUSION

The Joint Motion is DENIED. 

Dated: January 2, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-01993-LL-MDD Document 16 Filed 01/02/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3