The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff Sierrapine ("Plaintiff") moves for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion will be granted*fn1.
Plaintiff commenced the instant civil action on August 4, 2008. This Court issued its initial Pretrial Scheduling Order ("PTSO") on January 13, 2009. Pursuant to the terms of the order, the Court noted that "no joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of the court, good cause having been shown." The PTSO further provided a deadline for completion of non-expert discovery. The initial discovery cutoff date, October 23, 2009, was subsequently extended to December 23, 2009. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 16, 2009.
Plaintiff now seeks permission to amend its complaint to add three new causes of action related to newly discovered information.
Once a district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16,*fn2 which establishes a timetable to amend pleadings, that Rule's standards control. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, Plaintiff's ability to amend its complaint is governed by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a), as contended by Plaintiff. See Id. at 608.
In addition, prior to the final pretrial conference, a court may modify a status order upon a showing of "good cause." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). "Unlike Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)'s 'good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. In explaining this standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated:
[a] district court may modify the pretrial schedule 'if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.' Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for granting of relief. Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, 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.
To demonstrate diligence under Rule 16's "good cause" standard, courts have required movants to show the following:
(1) that they were diligent in assisting the Court in creating a workable Rule 16 order, see In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 111 F.3d 220, 228 (1st Cir. 1997); (2) that, despite their diligent efforts to comply, their noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred because of the development of matters that could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated, see Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; and (3) that they were diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that they could not comply with the order, see Eckert Cold Storage, Inc. v. Behl, 943 F. Supp. 1230, 1233 (E.D. Cal. 1996). Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999).
Plaintiff satisfies this "good cause" standard because Plaintiff was diligent in assisting the Court, noncompliance occurred due to developments that could not have been reasonably foreseen, and Plaintiff ...