Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02792/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02792-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIORGIO ENEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02792-HSG 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES

Re: Dkt. No. 61

Plaintiff Giorgio Enea moved to extend the deadlines in the Court’s scheduling order. Dkt. 

No. 61 (“Mot.”). Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 

motion on November 8, 2019, Dkt. No. 64, and issues this short order explaining its reasoning for 

the record.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for 

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 

Advisory Committee’s Notes (1983 amendment) (noting court may modify schedule “if it cannot 

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension”). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s 

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id.;

see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the moving 

party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends, and the motion should be denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. 

Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Whether or not to 

reopen discovery is in the discretion of the district court: the district court has “wide latitude in 

Case 4:18-cv-02792-HSG Document 65 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

controlling discovery.” United States v. Reliance Ins. Co., 799 F.2d 1382, 1387 (9th Cir. 1986).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed his motion three days before discovery closed, seeking to extend the 

discovery deadline by approximately seven months, and the subsequent deadlines by 

approximately four to five months. See generally Mot. According to Plaintiff, this extension is 

necessary because MBUSA purportedly disclosed that discovery was in the possession of its 

parent company, Daimler AG. Id. at 2. Because Daimler AG is a foreign corporation, Plaintiff 

claims that it would take “approximately 3 months just to perfect service through the Hague 

Convention.” Id. at 3. 

The Court finds Plaintiff fails to show good cause to extend the deadlines in the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. While Plaintiff tries to shift the blame onto Defendant for refusing to accept 

service on behalf of Daimler AG (which is not a Defendant in this action), Plaintiff never raised 

the possibility of seeking discovery from Daimler AG until October 25, 2019, two weeks before 

the discovery deadline. Dkt. No. 63-1, Declaration of Alfredo W. Amoedo ¶ 10. And Plaintiff, by 

his own admission, discovered that Defendant purchases replacement sunroofs “and/or their 

component parts from Daimler AG” on July 23, 2019. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff could have sought to 

subpoena Daimler AG in July, or could have raised this discovery issue with the Court at that 

time. Instead, he waited over three months to request an extension just three days before the 

discovery deadline. Plaintiff clearly was not diligent in seeking to extend the deadlines. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to extend deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/12/2019

Case 4:18-cv-02792-HSG Document 65 Filed 11/12/19 Page 2 of 2