Opinion
21-CV-1195-GPC-WVG
08-20-2021
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.), INC., Defendant.
ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION AND MOTION TO EXTEND EARLY DISCLOSURE DEADLINE IN COURT'S ORDER FOR VIDEO EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
HON. WILLIAM V. GALLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On August 17, 2021, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Extend Early Disclosure Deadline in Court's Order for Video Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. No. 8.) The Parties move the Court to continue the August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange initial disclosures to 45 days after the September 22, 2021 Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”). (Id., 2: 5-11.) Two reasons underlie the Joint Motion: (1) despite their “diligent” efforts, the Parties “cannot have [documents for initial disclosures] ready in time to exchange them on August 27, 2021;” and (2) “the Parties would like to focus their attention on the possibility of settlement prior to engaging in potential costly early disclosures.” (Id., 2: 7-14.) Neither of these reasons meet the good cause standard under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For this reason, the Court DENIES without prejudice the Parties' Joint Motion.
“Good cause may be found where the moving party shows it assisted the court with creating a workable scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the scheduling order's deadlines due to matters not reasonably foreseeable at the time the scheduling order issued, and that it was diligent in seeking a modification once it became apparent it could not comply with the scheduling order.” Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 2021 WL 2577144, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2021) (citing Sharp v. Covenant Care, LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) [internal citations omitted]).
The Parties' Joint Motion is too scant to permit a finding of good cause. As a threshold matter, it is unclear what particular steps the Parties have taken to meet the August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange initial disclosures. A bald statement of diligence is no substitute for a fact-specific showing of diligence. Further, the Court cannot properly assess why an exception to Rule 26(f) is appropriate, such that the deadline to exchange initial disclosures should be continued to a time following the ENE and CMC. Citing to cost without explanation and failing to offer any supporting legal authority obstructs the Court's evaluation of the Parties' request. Accordingly, the Court has no basis upon which to find good cause and declines to continue the August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange initial disclosures for such reason. The Parties' Joint Motion is DENIED without prejudice.