Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00992-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pacific Marine Center, Inc.
Plaintiff
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
Defendant
Sona Vartanian
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC., A 

California Corporation, and SONA 

VARTANIAN, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a Pennsylvanian Corporation, and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00992-AWI-SKO

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

STATEMENT RE SCHEDULE 

MODIFICATION

(Doc. Nos. 61, 62)

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 13, 2015, the parties filed a stipulated request to extend the expert discovery 

deadlines. (Doc. 59.) The request was not supported by good cause, and it was denied on 

November 16, 2015. (Doc. 60.) On November 19, 2015, both parties filed ex parte applications 

for an extension of the expert deadlines. (Docs. 61, 62.) 

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 63 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 5
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

For the reasons set forth below, before a sixth extension of time will be granted under the

circumstances of this case, the parties shall provide the supplemental information set forth below 

on or before November 25, 2015.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The original schedule in this matter was set on November 27, 2013. The deadlines, 

including the trial, were extended on October 2, 2014. (Doc. 17.) On March 9, 2015, the entire 

schedule was again modified at the parties' request. On April 29, 2015, again citing discovery 

disputes and difficulty scheduling depositions, the parties requested a schedule modification, 

including a continuation of the trial date. This request was granted on May 8, 2015. 

On July 30, 2015, the parties again stipulated for a wholesale change to the schedule 

because Plaintiff had broken her ankle and her deposition needed to be continued. This request 

was also granted. (Doc. 45.) On September 30, 2015, the parties once again filed a stipulated 

request for a schedule change due to the discovery of two new witnesses, and the parties sought 

additional time to designate supplemental experts:

WHEREAS, the current schedule of disclosure of expert testimony allows only 

four days from the date of the initial disclosure for the parties to provide 

supplemental disclosure of experts based upon the initial disclosure and Plaintiffs 

and Philadelphia would like more time to obtain and designate supplemental 

experts based upon the initial disclosure of experts of the opposing party;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Philadelphia desire to extend the time for non-expert 

discovery and to continue the dates of the deadlines for disclosure of experts, 

dispositive and non-dispositive motions;

(Doc. 48.) To maintain the trial date, the pre-trial deadlines were extended, but not to the extent 

requested by the parties. (Doc. 53.) Twenty-one days later, the parties filed another request for a 

schedule modification, stating the schedule was simply too aggressive:

WHEREAS, under the current schedule, the parties must provide expert reports on 

October 30, 2015, attend the settlement conference on November 2, 2015, counterdesignate experts on November 5, 2015, complete expert deposition discovery by 

November 12, 2015[,] and file non-dispositive and dispositive motions by 

November 16, 2015, and counsel do not believe that they will be able to 

accomplish those tasks in that limited time period;

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 63 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 5
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

(Doc. 55.) The Court modified the deadlines as proposed by the parties, but because of the 

additional time requested, the trial could not be accommodated until October 2016. (Doc. 56.)

On November 13, 2015, the parties again sought to extend their expert discovery deadlines 

indicating they were having difficulty scheduling expert depositions, particularly due to the 

holidays. This request was denied for lack of good cause. (Doc. 60.)

On November 19, 2015, both parties filed ex parte applications seeking additional time. 

They explained expert reports were served on November 13, 2015, that were far more extensive 

than anticipated. Philadelphia maintains it is clear from the reports that it will not be able to serve 

requests for depositions and documents, prepare for the deposition of expert witnesses on 

extremely complicated and complex topics in the expert reports, obtain and designate 

supplemental experts and defend the depositions designated by Philadelphia by the current 

December 3, 2015, deadline and also be able to file dispositive and non-dispositive motions by the 

December 7, 2015, deadline. Plaintiffs joined Philadelphia's request, asserting that it "will take 

substantial time, measured in weeks, not days to properly review [the forensic accountant expert's] 

work in order to be ready for his deposition." (Doc. 62.) Further, Plaintiffs state that they will "in 

all likelihood designate a supplemental expert to address his opinions, . . . "[o]ur supplemental 

expert will need some time to prepare for a meaningful deposition, . . . [and a]nother expert by 

defendant will also probably require a supplemental expert by plaintiffs. That will take time." 

(Doc. 62, 2:9-12.)

III. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 16, the Court is required to issue a scheduling order as soon as 

practicable, and the order "must limit the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete 

discovery, and file motions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once a scheduling order has been filed 

pursuant to Rule 16, the "schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's 

consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "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). If the moving party fails to demonstrate diligence, "the inquiry should 

end." Id. Good cause may be found, for example, where the moving party shows it assisted the 

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 63 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

court with creating a workable scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the scheduling 

order's deadlines due to matters not reasonably foreseeable at the time the scheduling order was 

issued, and that it was diligent in seeking modification once it became apparent it could not 

comply with the scheduling order. Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 

1999). 

What the Court finds most concerning about the parties' renewed requests for a schedule 

modification is the parties' pattern of underestimating the time needed to perform tasks in this 

litigation. The expert discovery deadlines were modified less than one month ago – exactly as the 

parties proposed. The existing deadlines were not arbitrarily selected by the Court – they were set

based on counsel's representation they had met and conferred meaningfully and had chosen dates 

that were workable and feasible based on their schedules, their experts' schedules, and counsel's 

knowledge about the nature and complexity of the issues in the case. Only counsel are privy to all 

the details of their cases, and as such, the Court relies on the parties to make careful assessments 

about the time necessary to complete the litigation tasks when requesting a particular schedule be 

put into effect.

1

 

The schedule change requested on October 21, 2015, proposed only a 20-day period 

between expert disclosure and the close of expert discovery. The sheer number of experts 

expected to be designated – without even knowing the details of their reports – was probably a 

good indication this period was too short to complete all the necessary tasks. The Court is not 

unsympathetic or unaware of the realities of litigation where the unexpected often occurs. Yet the 

volume of schedule modifications requested by the parties – five alone this year – weave a pattern 

evidencing a lack of meaningful discussion and consideration of the schedule and the nature of the 

case, rather than the occurrence of truly unforeseen events that could not have been reasonably 

anticipated. 

 

1 The Court expended a good deal of time trying to preserve the parties' trial date when they requested a schedule 

modification on September 30, 2015, while still extending the parties additional time for discovery, knowing that trialdate modification is problematic given Judge Ishii's extremely impacted calendar; trial-date modification can lead to 

costly delay. When the parties requested another schedule change on October 21, 2015, indicating the most recent 

schedule modification was simply too aggressive, the trial date was continued to October 2016 and all the pre-trial 

deadlines were reset as requested to give the parties the additional time they needed to complete discovery and file 

necessary motions.

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 63 Filed 11/23/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

From the Court's perspective, twenty days to review expert reports, designate rebuttal 

experts, prepare for depositions, and complete all expert discovery would be aggressive in nearly

any case. Nonetheless, the parties know their cases best and were the only ones privy to their meet 

and confer discussions in proposing the schedule that is now in place. The Court modified the 

schedule less than 30 days ago and for the fifth time this year based on the parties' representation 

that the proposed dates were feasible and realistic given both the nature of the case and the 

proximity of the deadlines to the holidays.

Therefore, before a sixth extension of time will be granted under these circumstances, 

proof that the parties have created a workable and feasible schedule is required. To establish they 

have proposed a feasible expert discovery deadline of January 11, 2016, the parties shall (1) 

provide the date when each currently disclosed expert will be deposed,

2

and (2) identify five days 

the parties agree will be set aside for the deposition of any rebuttal witnesses. The five days set 

aside for rebuttal expert depositions must be selected with sufficient time built in to review any 

rebuttal expert reports and prepare for such depositions. The parties' schedule modification 

requests will be entertained only when this supplemental information has been provided.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than November 25, 2015, but after meeting and conferring, the parties 

shall file a supplemental statement setting forth a precise expert deposition 

schedule as discussed above; and

2. The parties' ex parte applications for a schedule modification will be considered 

when this supplemental information is provided.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 These dates should be selected only after counsel confer with each other and with the experts regarding their 

availability.

Case 1:13-cv-00992-DAD-SKO Document 63 Filed 11/23/15 Page 5 of 5