Opinion
23-cv-981-BAS-DDL
08-02-2024
NOELLE ARGUELLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PENNEY OPCO, LLC, d/b/a JCPENNEY, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER [DKT. NO. 42]
Hon. David D. Leshner, United States Magistrate Judge
On February 13, 2024, the Court issued the initial Scheduling Order in this matter that, among other things, required the parties to substantially complete their document productions by not later than May 28, 2024, and directed Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification by not later than June 27, 2024. Dkt. No. 25. On May 2, 2024, following a status conference with the parties, the Court continued the deadline for Plaintiff to file her class certification motion to July 26, 2024. Dkt. No. 34.
On July 25, 2024, the day before Plaintiff's class certification motion was due, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the Scheduling Order. Dkt. No. 42. The joint motion informed the Court that (1) Defendant intends to make a supplemental document production on August 9, 2024; (2) Plaintiff has not taken the deposition of Defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6); (3) Defendant has not taken Plaintiff's deposition; and (4) “[b]ased on counsel and witness schedules,” pre-class certification motion depositions should occur in September 2024. Additionally, Defendant now contends expert discovery should precede the motion for class certification. Based on the foregoing, the parties request to continue the deadline for Plaintiff to file her class certification motion to either October 15, 2024 (Plaintiff's request) or January 10, 2025 (Defendant's request).
A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “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). Here, the requested amendment to the scheduling order appears to be due to an apparent unwillingness by Defendant to provide deposition dates while it was transitioning to new counsel and a determination by Defendant that it wishes to engage in expert discovery prior to the class certification motion. These considerations do not support a finding of diligence by Defendant. However, by filing their motion to amend the Scheduling Order the day before Plaintiff's class certification motion was due (and given that the July 26 deadline has passed), the reality is that denying the joint motion in its entirety would preclude Plaintiff from seeking class certification.
As discussed at the status conference on July 31, 2024, the parties should have advised the Court in a timely manner if there were ongoing issues that threatened their ability to comply with the operative Scheduling Order. Based on counsel's representations at the status conference, the Court is confident this issue will not arise again.
In the interests of justice, the Joint Motion is GRANTED IN PART, and the Scheduling Order is AMENDED as follows:
| EVENT | CURRENT DATE | NEW DATE |
| Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification | July 26, 2024 | September 6, 2024 |
| Status Conference | September 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. | October 23, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. |
The deadline for the parties to raise any disputes regarding written discovery has passed, and the Court expects the parties work cooperatively to schedule Plaintiff's deposition and Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition so as to allow adequate time for Plaintiff to timely file her class certification motion.
The parties must comply with all other directives set forth in the original Scheduling Order at Dkt. No. 25. The foregoing deadlines will not be modified except for good cause shown.
IT IS SO ORDERED.