United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO
EXTEND CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND VACATE
DISCOVERY AND TRIAL DEADLINES RE: DKT. NO. 340
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
filed this putative class action against Pacific Fertility
Center (“Pacific Fertility”), Prelude Fertility,
Inc. (“Prelude”), and Chart Industries
(“Chart”) alleging various state law
claims. Upon Pacific Fertility's motion, the
Court compelled the claims against it to arbitration. (Dkt.
No. 192.) Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification of their claims against Prelude, Pacific MSO,
and Chart. (Dkt. No. 301.) Two weeks before Plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification, Chart filed a
third-party complaint against San Francisco Fertility Centers
dba Pacific Fertility, and seven physicians alleging claims
for indemnity and contribution. (Dkt. No. 288.) All but one
of these third-party defendants have moved to dismiss the
third-party complaint and to extend the class certification
briefing schedule and vacate and reset the discovery and
trial deadlines. (Dkt. Nos. 339 & 340.) The parties have
agreed to a briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss and
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the motion to extend
the class certification briefing schedule and vacate trial
and discovery dates. (Dkt. Nos. 343 & 345.) Having
considered the parties' briefs on the motion to extend
and vacate dates, the Court DENIES the third-party
defendants' motion as they have failed to demonstrate
good cause for any extension.
seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good
cause” for such relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4) (“A
schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the
judge's consent.”). “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). “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
third-party defendants' request to amend the scheduling
order is two-fold. First, the third-party defendants seek a
three-month extension of the briefing schedule on
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. According to
the third-party defendants such an extension is necessary
because they need to “evaluate” how the motion
for class certification “may affect” their claims
and defenses, and without an extension they “will be
prejudiced because the motion will affect Plaintiffs'
claims against Chart, which in turn will affect the scope of
Chart's claims against Third-Party Defendants for
contribution and equitable/implied indemnity.” (Dkt.
No. 340 at 2:25-27; 3:1-3.) Neither of these arguments
demonstrates good cause for adjusting the class certification
briefing schedule. Plaintiffs do not seek certification of
any claims against the third-party defendants nor is it
apparent that there is anything for the third-party
defendants to oppose with respect to class certification.
They have not argued that their status as third-party
defendants gives them a right to oppose class certification
as to claims to which they are not joined and the Court is
not aware of authority to this effect. The third-party
defendants have thus failed to demonstrate good cause for
modifying the class certification briefing schedule.
the third-party defendants seek an extension of the discovery
and trial schedule. However, the third-party defendants do
not specify either how much time they will need or what
discovery they need. Absent such information, the third-party
defendants cannot establish cause, let alone good cause, for
modifying the discovery and trial schedule. See Rashdan
v. Geissberger, No. C 10-00634 SBA, 2012 WL 566379, at
*3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012) (denying motion to amend
schedule where “Plaintiff neglects to specifically
identify the documents she seeks or why those documents are
necessary to proceed with the sixteen previously-scheduled
depositions.”); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Serv. Key,
LLC, No. C 12-00790 SBA, 2013 WL 2384246, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. May 30, 2013) (denying motion to amend where the moving
party provided “no explanation” for delay). The
fact-discovery cut-off is 60 days following the court's
ruling on class certification which is set to be heard
February 27, 2020. (Dkt. Nos. 224 & 330.) The third-party
defendants' motion to dismiss will be heard on February
13, 2020. (Dkt. No. 339.) The third-party defendants have not
shown that they will not have adequate time to conduct
discovery following a decision on their motion to dismiss,
especially given that their counsel has attended all of the
depositions to date and is thus well positioned to know what
particular additional discovery might be necessary. (Dkt. No.
345-1 at ¶¶ 4-5.)
the third-party defendants have failed to demonstrate good
cause for modifying the Court's scheduling orders. The
motion to amend is therefore DENIED.
Order disposes of Docket No. 345.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Plaintiffs thereafter filed a First
Amended Complaint which added Pacific Fertility MSO, LLC
(“Pacific MSO”), a Prelude subsidiary, as a