Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00779/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00779-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332ds Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1

16-CV-779-W-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

NIPPON ZOKI PHARMACEUTICAL 

CO., LTD,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-779-W-WVG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

CONTINUE FACT DISCOVERY 

DEADLINE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 35]

Present before the Court is the parties Joint Motion to continue the fact discovery 

deadline by sixty days. (ECF No. 35.) Because the parties have not demonstrated good 

cause for such an extension, the Joint Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

On October 24, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 16(b) setting July 21, 2017 as the date by which all discovery 

pertaining to facts was to be completed. (ECF No. 24 at 2:22-23.) With more than three 

months remaining to conduct fact discovery, on April 17, 2017, the parties filed the present 

Joint Motion, requesting the Court continue the fact discovery deadline by sixty days. The 

basis for the request is that the collection and exchange of electronically stored information 

(“ESI”) is “far more extensive than the parties originally anticipated.” (ECF No. 35 at 2:15-

Case 3:16-cv-00779-W-WVG Document 36 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-779-W-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

16.)

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 

“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 

Case 3:16-cv-00779-W-WVG Document 36 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-779-W-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

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

The Court finds the Joint Motion does not adequately demonstrate good cause to 

warrant an extension. In the Joint Motion, the parties aver that “Defendant served written 

discovery requests on Plaintiff on February 15, 2017,” nearly four months after the opening 

of fact discovery. (ECF No. 35 at 2, ¶ 4.) The parties then indicate they are “in the process 

of exchanging responsive documents and ESI.” (ECF No. 35 at 2, ¶ 8.) Notably absent 

from the Joint Motion is the date by which the parties propounded requests for production 

of documents, or other specific requests for the ESI in question. Without this information, 

the Court finds it difficult to conclude the parties “diligently attempt[ed] to adhere” to the 

Court’s schedule. Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 607. Additionally, the parties simply describe 

the volume of ESI as “extensive” or “significant” without going into any detail of the 

magnitude of the outstanding ESI, which party is working to retrieve the ESI, and what 

processes are involved in obtaining the ESI. Without this key information, the Court is 

unable to find good cause exists to amend the Scheduling Order. Most concerning to the 

Court is there is no explanation as to why Defendant waited nearly four months to 

commence written discovery and what Defendant may have been doing during that time to 

litigate this case.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the parties Joint Motion without 

prejudice. Should the parties seek another extension, the parties must supply the Court with 

the pertinent information described above and justification as to why discovery cannot be 

completed in the remaining three months of fact discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00779-W-WVG Document 36 Filed 04/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3