UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 8, 2008
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF,
GALE CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ALSO KNOWN AS GALE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
On August 4, 2008, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order permitting Defendant/Counterclaimant Gale Corp. ("Gale") to file its Motion to Modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order, and to hear the Motion on shortened time on August 8, 2008.
Pursuant to the terms of the parties' stipulation, Plaintiff/ Counterdefendant Greenberg Traurig ("Greenberg Traurig") filed its Opposition to Gale's Motion on August 5, 2008. Having considered the papers submitted, the Court grants the Motion.*fn1
The Court's Scheduling Order may be modified upon a showing of "good cause" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). 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). Here, the declaration of Gale's counsel, Rudy Nolen, indicates that he has been in trial continuously since June 2, 2008 and expects to be engaged in three additional back-to-back trials that will not be completed until the end of November, 2008. Although the parties have engaged in significant discovery since the time of the Court's February 8, 2008 Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order, and although a number of depositions have apparently been taken on days when Mr. Nolen's current trial is not in session, Nolen has represented to the Court that given his trial commitments as outlined above he cannot complete discovery by the time of the August 15, 2008 deadline currently set. Consequently he has requested an extension of the discovery deadline until January 15, 2009.
In opposition, Greenberg Traurig's attorneys do not take issue either with Mr. Nolen's diligence or with the accuracy of his trial schedule as reported to the Court.
Rather, they argue only that the continuance requested for discovery is too lengthy, and that only a two-month continuance is necessary.
Under the circumstances, the Court finds Mr. Nolen's continuance request to be reasonable. Consequently, with good cause appearing therefor, the Court GRANTS Gale's Motion to Extend the Completion of Discovery to and including January 15, 2009. The Court will issue an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order setting forth the other deadlines in this case, which will be continued commensurately with the extended discovery deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED.