United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPSEND AND RESET DISCOVERY
DEADLINES (DOC. 411) ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff Gloria Palacios Moralez's
motion to suspend discovery and reset the discovery deadlines
after resolution of her pending motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. 411). Defendant Mike Young, Acting Secretary, United
States Department of Agriculture (“Defendant”)
opposed the motion, and Plaintiff replied. (Docs. 412, 415).
The Court heard oral argument on April 7, 2017.
Plaintiff's counsel Brandon Nagy, Phillip Fraas and
Michael Tucci appeared by telephone. Defendant's counsel
Joseph Frueh also appeared by telephone.
reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion to suspend
discovery is discovery shall be denied as moot, but her
request to reset the deadline for non-expert liability
discovery after resolution of the motion for reconsideration
shall be granted.
March 1, 2016, Plaintiff's claims were transferred to
this Court. (Doc. 376). Pursuant to a stipulation of the
parties, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on May
13, 2016. The amended complaint alleged two claims: (1) a
violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
(“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. 1691(a), for alleged
discrimination related to loans or loan servicing during the
periods January 1, 1981 to December 1, 1996, and October 13,
1998 to October 13, 2000; and (2) a violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) for alleged
discrimination in connection with the denial of crop disaster
benefits in 1993. (Doc. 391). Defendant Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture answered the fourth amended
complaint on June 13, 2016. (Doc. 392).
28, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order, which set the
deadline to complete nonexpert/liability discovery as April
14, 2017. (Doc. 396). Thereafter, the parties exchanged
initial disclosures and written discovery. (Doc. 411-1 at p.
2 and Doc. 412 at p. 3).
October 3, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's first cause of action for violation of the
ECOA for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the
alternative, for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 399). On
December 21, 2016, the Court denied Defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but granted
Defendant's motion for summary adjudication, allowing the
matter to proceed against Defendant only on Plaintiff's
second cause of action for violation of the APA. (Doc. 405).
December 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order granting summary
adjudication and limiting this action to her second cause of
action for violation of the APA. (Doc. 406). On February 1,
2017, the Court deemed the matter suitable for decision
without oral argument, and the motion for reconsideration was
taken under submission as of February 6, 2017. (Doc. 410).
March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to suspend
discovery and reset the discovery deadlines after the Court
rules on the pending motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 411).
Defendant opposed the motion, and Plaintiff replied. (Docs.
oral argument on the motion to suspend discovery and resent
deadlines, the District Court denied Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration. Therefore, the case proceeds solely on
Plaintiff's claim for violation of the APA based on
alleged discrimination in connection with the denial of crop
disaster benefits in 1993. (Doc. 420).
to Rule 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). The “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). The court may
modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be
met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension.” Id. If the party was not diligent,
the inquiry should end. Id.