Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00313/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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 11cv0313 L(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH BLUHM; EVAN BECKER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP,

INC.; RED CAPITAL GROUP, LLC;

RED CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; THE

NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION

MANAGEMENT SEVERANCE PLAN, as

effective January 1, 2005; THE

NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION

MANAGEMENT SEVERANCE PLAN, as

effective September 30, 2008;

THE RED CAPITAL GROUP

MANAGEMENT SEVERANCE PLAN, as

effective July 1, 2008,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv0313 L(RBB)

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO

CONTINUE DISCOVER, SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND RELATED DATES

[ECF NO. 25]

On February 13, 2012, the Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a

Joint Motion to Continue Discovery, Summary Judgment and Related

Dates [ECF No. 25]. In their Motion, the parties seek to extend

the deadline for filing certain discovery motions: (1) for a

protective order, (2) to compel discovery for document responses

received prior to February 8, 2012, and (3) to compel deposition

answers from the Plaintiffs. (Joint Mot. Continue Disc., Summ. J.

Case 3:11-cv-00313-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 4
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 11cv0313 L(RBB)

& Related Dates 1-2, ECF No. 25.) They also seek to continue the

discovery deadline from April 16, 2012, to June 30, 2012. (Id.) 

The parties ask the Court to take the Defendants’ pending Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] off calendar and

reschedule the Motion to be heard with a second motion for partial

summary judgment. (Id.) The Plaintiffs and Defendants request

that the deadline to file a motion for partial summary judgment on

the retaliation claim be extended from March 1, to April 9, 2012. 

(Id. at 2.) They also seek additional time to file pretrial

motions. (Id.)

A motion to extend dates set in the Court’s scheduling order

requires a showing of good cause. See Zivkovic v. Southern Cal.

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“The pretrial schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” 

Id. (quoting Johnson, 975 F.3d at 609). “If the party seeking the

modification ‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ . . . .” 

Id.

This case has been pending since February 15, 2011. (Compl.

1, ECF No. 1.) The case management conference was held on May 5,

2011, and the discovery cutoff date of January 3, 2012, was set. 

(Case Mgmt. Conference Order 1, ECF No. 8.) The Defendants, on

September 15, 2011, filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

[ECF No. 12]. Two weeks later, on September 29, 2011, the Court

granted a joint motion to postpone by one week an October 3, 2011

deadline for Plaintiffs to move to compel Defendants to produce

documents in response to Plaintiffs’ first request for documents

Case 3:11-cv-00313-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 02/17/12 Page 2 of 4
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

3 11cv0313 L(RBB)

[ECF No. 14]. On October 11, 2011, the parties filed a second

joint motion to continue the deadline for plaintiffs to file a

motion to compel production of documents so that it would coincide

with the deadline to file a motion to compel with respect to

Plaintiffs’ second set of requests for production. (Joint Mot.

Continue Certain Disc. 1-2, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs and Defendants

also asked to extend the discovery cutoff to February 16, 2012, and

postpone Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. (Id.) 

The Court granted the Joint Motion [ECF No. 17]. 

The parties, on January 12, 2012, filed another motion to

continue deadlines set in the Court’s Case Management Order. They

asked to extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions to March

1, 2012, the hearing on the Defendants’ pending summary judgment

motion to March 5, 2012, and the discovery cutoff to April 16, 2012

[ECF No. 21]. The Court granted the request [ECF No. 24].

In spite of the multiple extensions, on February 13, 2012, the

parties filed a fourth request to extend discovery and other

deadlines [ECF No. 25]. Defendants indicate that they intend to

file an additional motion for partial summary judgment, and the

parties request that the pending summary judgment motion [ECF No.

12] and the anticipated motion be heard together on a future date. 

(Joint Mot. Continue Disc., Summ. J & Related Dates 1-3, ECF No.

25.) They propose that the deadline for Defendants to file a

motion to compel deposition answers from Plaintiffs, and for

Plaintiffs to compel the production of documents from Defendants

relating to responses received prior to February 8, 2012, be

extended to March 23, 2012. (Id. at 2.) They also request that

Case 3:11-cv-00313-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 02/17/12 Page 3 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\BROOKS\CASES\BLUHM0313\Order Den Jt Mot. Continue.wpd 4 11cv0313 L(RBB)

Defendants’ anticipated motion for partial summary judgment on the

retaliation claim be filed by April 9, 2012. (Id.) 

The Plaintiffs and Defendants both fail to show that their

discovery efforts have been diligent and that they are incapable of

completing discovery by the current deadline, April 16, 2012. The

deadline for filing discovery motions is not extended. The Case

Management Order expressly provides a timetable for seeking to

compel certain discovery.

All motions for discovery shall be filed no later than

thirty (30) days following 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 affected portion of the deposition. 

For written discovery, the event giving rise to the

discovery dispute is the service of the response.

(Case Mgmt. Conference Order 2, ECF No. 8.)

Similarly, Defendants fail to show diligence and that they are

incapable of filing any additional summary judgment motions by the

current deadline, March 1, 2012. For these reasons, the Joint

Motion to extend discovery-related deadlines is denied. The

hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is not

continued; however, if the parties seek to consolidate the pending

motion with a motion for partial summary judgment on the

Plaintiffs’ retaliation claims, Defendants may withdraw the pending

motion and file a comprehensive motion by the current deadline. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2012 

RUBEN B. BROOKS

United States Magistrate Judge

cc:

Judge Huff

All Parties of Record

Case 3:11-cv-00313-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 02/17/12 Page 4 of 4