Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00641/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00641-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

1 09cv641-L

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENTON L. CROWLEY; JOHN A. FLORES, Civil No. 09CV641-L (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONTINUE DISCOVERY AND ALL

OTHER DATES AND DEADLINES

[Doc. No. 29]

v.

EPICEPT CORP.,

Defendant.

The parties filed a Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and the Mandatory Settlement Conference. 

(Doc. No. 29.) The motion and the accompanying declaration state that the parties “have not

participated in meaningful discovery exchanges.” (Id. at 2.) The Case Management Conference Order

was issued on February 18, 2010, thus the parties have had seven months to conduct discovery in this

case. (Doc. No. 24.) The Case Management Conference Order contained the following warning: “The

dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown.” (Id. at 9.) Good

cause exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm.’s Notes (1983 Am.). 

Plaintiffs’ counsel bases her request for additional time on her busy trial schedule. During a call

with the Court, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that she has not propounded any written discovery and

has not taken a deposition. Furthermore, the dates set in the Case Management Order provided for a

lengthy discovery period in order to accommodate Plaintiffs’ counsel’s trial schedule. While Plaintiffs’

counsel claims her burdensome trial schedule and the small size of her law firm prevent her from

Case 3:09-cv-00641-L-BGS Document 30 Filed 09/22/10 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

2 09cv641-L

meeting the discovery deadlines, such an excuse does not satisfy good cause. See Hernandez v. Mario’s

Auto Sales, Inc., 617 F. Supp.2d 488, 495 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Furthermore, in Gonzalez v. Ingersoll

Milling Machine Co., 133 F.3d 1025, 1030 (7th Cir. 1998), counsel’s busy trial schedule did not

demonstrate good cause for obtaining an extension of time. The parties have not shown any evidence of

diligence in attempting to comply with the deadlines set in the Case Management Conference Order.

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If

necessary, the parties may file a renewed motion after the Mandatory Settlement Conference. Counsel

must diligently proceed with discovery in preparation for the Mandatory Settlement Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2010

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-00641-L-BGS Document 30 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 2