Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02294/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02294-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Costco Wholesale Corporation
Defendant
Megan Olsen
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEGAN OLSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:22-cv-2294-DJC-JDP

ORDER 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for administrative relief that requests that the scheduling order 

be modified to extend the deadline for completion of discovery. ECF No. 21. She explains that 

additional time is needed to complete four depositions. Defendant has filed an untimely 

opposition. See E.D Cal. L.R. 233(b); ECF No. 26. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion is 

granted. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that a scheduling order “may be modified 

for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The Ninth Circuit has explained that “Rule 16(b)’s 

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers 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.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 

(9th Cir. 1992) (some quotations omitted). Although the degree of prejudice to the opposing 

Case 2:22-cv-02294-DJC-JDP Document 28 Filed 11/05/24 Page 1 of 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

2

party may be considered as an additional basis for denying a motion to modify a scheduling order, 

“the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that 

party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. (citation omitted).

It appears that plaintiff has been diligent in her efforts to complete the dispositions at 

issue, but defendant has made it difficult for plaintiff to do so before the close of discovery. 

Given plaintiff’s diligence, I find that there is good cause for the requested modification of the 

scheduling order. The motion is therefore granted.1 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief, ECF No. 21, is granted.

2. The deadline for completion of fact discovery is extended to December 20, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

In her motion plaintiff indicates that defendant has refused to produce multiple witnesses 

for deposition. At this time, I decline to address whether plaintiff is entitled to depose each of the 

witnesses identified in her motion. Instead, the parties are directed to meet and confer about any 

discovery related disputes. If they are unable to informally resolve their differences, they should 

promptly request a pre-discovery motion conference be set in accordance with my procedures for 

civil matters. 

Case 2:22-cv-02294-DJC-JDP Document 28 Filed 11/05/24 Page 2 of 2