Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02656/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02656-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1442aaf Petition for Removal - Agst members of armed forces

---

1

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

STEVE CAVNER and BETH CAVNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIRBORNE SYSTEMS NORTH 

AMERICA OF CA, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 

TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR 

FACT DISCOVERY AND LATER 

DEADLINES

[ECF No. 65]

I. Background

The parties have filed a second Joint Motion to Continue the Deadline for Fact 

Discovery and Later Deadlines. (ECF No. 65.) This case was filed on November 25, 

2015 and the first scheduling order issued on February 12, 2016. As part of that order, 

fact discovery was to be completed by August 12, 2016. However, on June 22, 2016, the 

parties filed a Joint Motion to Continue Deadline for Fact Discovery and Later Deadlines 

for 180 days. The primary basis for the parties’ good cause was the addition of other 

parties which necessarily required additional discovery. In that this was the first request 

to continue and the stated reasons established good cause, the Court granted the parties’ 

request for a 180-day extension of all deadlines without having the parties first detail 

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 66 Filed 01/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

what discovery had been done to date. Now the parties seek another extension of fact 

discovery as well as extensions for other deadlines for an additional 90 days. 

II. Analysis

In general, the dates and times set in the scheduling order will not be modified 

except for good cause shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (stating “A schedule may be 

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). The Ninth Circuit has 

explained that Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard is focused on the diligence of the party 

seeking the amendment and has stated the inquiry as follows: “[t]he 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. advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). 

In the present case, the parties have had from February 12, 2016 to the present to 

conduct discovery. In fact, the current fact discovery deadline is February 8, 2017, 

providing the parties almost a full year to complete discovery. The Court has already 

granted an extension of 180 days. This second request asking for an additional 90 days, 

with the caveat to request more extensions of the schedule, will require a detailed due 

diligence proffer before the Court will consider granting a limited extension of fact 

discovery. The parties are to provide the Court with a detailed account of what discovery 

has been done, giving the dates corresponding to the specific discovery item (i.e., when 

the discovery was requested and when was it produced). Further, they are to provide an 

account of what remaining discovery has yet to be done, and explain why using due 

diligence this remaining discovery could not be accomplished within the one year time 

frame.

By way of example, in Adam Levine’s declaration, paragraphs 5-9, he summarizes 

written discovery propounded on July 18-19, 2016. (ECF No. 65-1.) The declarant fails 

to detail why this discovery was not done sooner. Nor does the declarant detail when it 

was received, reviewed and how it impacts particular discovery which is outstanding. In 

paragraph 12 the declarant states Rule 30(b)(6) depositions have been noticed. The 

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 66 Filed 01/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15cv2656 LAB (BGS)

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

declarant fails to detail the dates of the notices, as well as why, using due diligence, they 

were not noticed sooner. Further, for any other outstanding depositions, the parties 

should provide the same due diligence analysis. 

The Court, pursuant to the above stated law, will consider extensions of time for 

conducting specific discovery (as opposed to a general extension for all discovery), and 

only after the parties have shown that under a due diligence standard they were not able 

to complete the specific discovery by the extended deadline of February 8, 2017. The 

Court notes that at the Case Management Conference held on February 12, 2016 the 

Court refused to bifurcate the discovery as moved by both sides. So any delays for any 

discovery must be substantiated with a due diligence proffer. 

It is ordered that the Joint Motion to Continue is denied without prejudice. The 

parties may renew this motion, but only after complying with the requirements of due 

diligence as set for in this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02656-LAB-BGS Document 66 Filed 01/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3