UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 17, 2012
ELIZABETH BLUHM; EVAN BECKER,
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; RED CAPITAL GROUP, LLC; RED CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; THE NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT SEVERANCE PLAN, AS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2005; THE NATIONAL CITY CORPORATION MANAGEMENT SEVERANCE PLAN, AS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 2008; THE RED CAPITAL GROUP MANAGEMENT SEVERANCE PLAN, AS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2008,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ruben B. Brooks United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCOVER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RELATED DATES ) [ECF NO. 25]
On February 13, 2012, the Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Continue Discovery, Summary Judgment and Related Dates [ECF No. 25]. In their Motion, the parties seek to extend the deadline for filing certain discovery motions: (1) for a protective order, (2) to compel discovery for document responses received prior to February 8, 2012, and (3) to compel deposition answers from the Plaintiffs. (Joint Mot. Continue Disc., Summ. J. & Related Dates 1-2, ECF No. 25.) They also seek to continue the discovery deadline from April 16, 2012, to June 30, 2012. (Id.) The parties ask the Court to take the Defendants' pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] off calendar and reschedule the Motion to be heard with a second motion for partial summary judgment. (Id.) The Plaintiffs and Defendants request that the deadline to file a motion for partial summary judgment on the retaliation claim be extended from March 1, to April 9, 2012. (Id. at 2.) They also seek additional time to file pretrial motions. (Id.)
A motion to extend dates set in the Court's scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. See Zivkovic v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992)). "The pretrial schedule may be modified 'if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" Id. (quoting Johnson, 975 F.3d at 609). "If the party seeking the modification 'was not diligent, the inquiry should end' . . . ." Id.
This case has been pending since February 15, 2011. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) The case management conference was held on May 5, 2011, and the discovery cutoff date of January 3, 2012, was set. (Case Mgmt. Conference Order 1, ECF No. 8.) The Defendants, on September 15, 2011, filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12]. Two weeks later, on September 29, 2011, the Court granted a joint motion to postpone by one week an October 3, 2011 deadline for Plaintiffs to move to compel Defendants to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs' first request for documents [ECF No. 14]. On October 11, 2011, the parties filed a second joint motion to continue the deadline for plaintiffs to file a motion to compel production of documents so that it would coincide with the deadline to file a motion to compel with respect to Plaintiffs' second set of requests for production. (Joint Mot. Continue Certain Disc. 1-2, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs and Defendants also asked to extend the discovery cutoff to February 16, 2012, and postpone Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. (Id.) The Court granted the Joint Motion [ECF No. 17].
The parties, on January 12, 2012, filed another motion to continue deadlines set in the Court's Case Management Order. They asked to extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions to March 1, 2012, the hearing on the Defendants' pending summary judgment motion to March 5, 2012, and the discovery cutoff to April 16, 2012 [ECF No. 21]. The Court granted the request [ECF No. 24].
In spite of the multiple extensions, on February 13, 2012, the parties filed a fourth request to extend discovery and other deadlines [ECF No. 25]. Defendants indicate that they intend to file an additional motion for partial summary judgment, and the parties request that the pending summary judgment motion [ECF No. 12] and the anticipated motion be heard together on a future date. (Joint Mot. Continue Disc., Summ. J & Related Dates 1-3, ECF No. 25.) They propose that the deadline for Defendants to file a motion to compel deposition answers from Plaintiffs, and for Plaintiffs to compel the production of documents from Defendants relating to responses received prior to February 8, 2012, be extended to March 23, 2012. (Id. at 2.) They also request that Defendants' anticipated motion for partial summary judgment on the retaliation claim be filed by April 9, 2012. (Id.)
The Plaintiffs and Defendants both fail to show that their discovery efforts have been diligent and that they are incapable of completing discovery by the current deadline, April 16, 2012. The deadline for filing discovery motions is not extended. The Case Management Order expressly provides a timetable for seeking to compel certain discovery.
All motions for discovery shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days following the date upon which the event giving rise to the dispute occurred. For oral discovery, the event giving rise to the dispute is the completion of the transcript of the affected portion of the deposition. For written discovery, the event giving rise to the discovery dispute is the service of the response. (Case Mgmt. Conference Order 2, ECF No. 8.)
Similarly, Defendants fail to show diligence and that they are incapable of filing any additional summary judgment motions by the current deadline, March 1, 2012. For these reasons, the Joint Motion to extend discovery-related deadlines is denied. The hearing on Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is not continued; however, if the parties seek to consolidate the pending motion with a motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' retaliation claims, Defendants may withdraw the pending motion and file a comprehensive motion by the current deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge Huff All Parties of Record
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.