Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00967/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00967-21/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kinsale Insurance Company
Defendant
New York Marine and General Insurance Company
Plaintiff
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company
Plaintiff
TRC Cypress Group, LLC
Unknown
TRC Operating Company, Inc.
Unknown

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

ST PAUL FIRE AND MARINE 

INSURANCE COMPANY and NEW 

YORK MARINE AND GENERAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant,

TRC OPERATING COMPANY, INC.

and TRC CYPRESS GROUP, LLC.,

Real Parties in Interest.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00967-CDB

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE 

NUNC PRO TUNC CASE MANAGEMENT 

DATES

(Doc. 99)

Background

Following its grant of Plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment and denial of 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see Doc. 94), on July 1, 2024, the Court adopted the 

parties’ stipulated request to set case management dates governing the remainder of discovery and 

the briefing schedule for anticipated dispositive motions. (Doc. 96). Among other things, the 

Court directed the parties to complete alternative dispute resolution/mediation by October 29, 

2024, to complete discovery by December 27, 2024, and to file any dispositive motions by 

February 7, 2025. Id.

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request filed December 23, 2024, to 

continue by approximately 90 days all case management dates – including the expired deadline to 

complete alternative dispute resolution/mediation. (Doc. 99). The parties proffer that good cause 

Case 1:20-cv-00967-CDB Document 100 Filed 12/26/24 Page 1 of 3
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

exists for the extension in part because new counsel for Plaintiff St. Paul Fire and Marine 

Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) substituted into the case on October 24, 2024, and “is in the 

process of becoming familiar with the more than four years of litigation associated with this 

matter.” Id. at 2. The parties represent that counsel’s substitution prevented them from 

completing mediation by the deadline and that they continue to coordinate the scheduling of 

anticipated mediation, which they expect will be completed by January 2025. The parties 

represent they have “diligently pursued discovery” but seek additional time in an effort to pursue 

mediation and “minimize expenses” through continued litigation.

Standard of Law

District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, 

amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Once 

entered, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R 

Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems. Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only 

for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As the Court of Appeals 

has observed: “... trial courts in both the federal and state systems routinely set schedules and 

establish deadlines to foster efficient treatment and resolution of cases. Those efforts will be 

successful only if the deadlines are taken seriously by the parties, and the best way to encourage 

that is to enforce the deadlines.” Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 

2005). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 

the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If the moving party is unable to reasonably meet a 

deadline despite acting diligently, the scheduling order may be modified. Id. If, however, the 

moving party “‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be 

granted.” Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 

975 F.2d at 609).

Discussion

Here, an extension of case management dates may be warranted; however, the Court does 

Case 1:20-cv-00967-CDB Document 100 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 3
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

not presently have before it sufficient information to find that the parties have undertaken 

discovery diligently such that good cause would support the granting of any request for extension. 

Specifically, although the parties represent they have “diligently pursued discovery” (Doc. 99 at 

2), the parties have not provided the Court with any details concerning what discovery was 

completed before St Paul’s current counsel substituted into the case, what discovery has been 

completed since counsel substituted into the case, and what discovery remains to be completed 

(i.e., third-party subpoenas, depositions, etc.).

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the parties’ stipulated request to extend 

discovery and all other case management dates (Doc. 99) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 

the parties’ filing of a renewed stipulated request identifying good cause for any extension.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00967-CDB Document 100 Filed 12/26/24 Page 3 of 3