1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARATHON PETROLEUM Case No.: 3:24-cv-01560-BJC-VET COMPANY, LP, a Delaware limited 12 partnership; TREASURE FRANCHISE ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited MOTION AND ISSUING MODIFIED liability company, SCHEDULING ORDER 14

Plaintiffs, 15 [Doc. No. 50] v. 16 CMB PETROLEUM INC., a California 17 corporation; AMACA PROPERTIES 18 LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Scheduling Order 22 Deadlines and Extend Deadline to Raise Discovery Disputes (“Joint Motion”). Doc. No. 23 50. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion and ISSUES a 24 Modified Scheduling Order. 25 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 26 On January 21, 2025, the Court issued the initial Scheduling Order Regulating 27 Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings. Doc. No. 36. On April 15, 2025, Defendant 28 Amaca Properties LLC (“Amaca”) filed a Second Amended Answer and Cross-Claim 1 against Defendant CMB Petroleum Inc. (“CMB”). Doc. No. 48. On June 12, 2025, the 2 parties filed the instant Joint Motion, requesting that the Court extend fact and expert 3 discovery deadlines by 60 days. Doc. No. 50. In addition, the parties request that the Court 4 extend the deadline to raise a discovery dispute relating to CMB’s responses to certain 5 interrogatories and production of certain documents and a privilege log. Id. at 7–8. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 In determining whether to modify a scheduling order, the Court considers the “good 8 cause” standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 16(b)(4). Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4), a “schedule may be modified only for good cause and 10 with the judge’s consent.” Id. (emphasis added); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 11 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the pretrial scheduling order can only be modified upon a 12 showing of good cause”). Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard “primarily considers the 13 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc. (In re W. States 14 Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig.), 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district 15 court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence 16 of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 17 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes on the 1983 18 amendment); see also Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087; 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal 19 Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990) (“good cause” means scheduling 20 deadlines cannot be met despite party’s diligence). “[C]arelessness is not compatible with 21 a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 22 The focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. Id.; 23 Adrian v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 686 F. App’x 403, 405 (9th Cir. 2017) (applied to joint 24 motions); Neidermeyer v. Caldwell, 718 F. App’x 485, 489 (9th Cir. 2017) (moving party 25 did not show good cause when he “offered no explanation for his undue delay”). 26 Further, the required showing of diligence is measured by conduct displayed 27 throughout the period of time already allowed. See, e.g., Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 28 731 F. Supp. 2d 961, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Krohne Fund, LP v. Simonsen, 681 F. App’x 1 635, 638 (9th Cir. 2017); Lyles v. Dollar Rent a Car, Inc., 849 F. App’x 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2 2021). “If [the moving] party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d 3 at 609; Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764 (9th Cir. 2017) 4 (same). 5 Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) also requires that all counsel “proceed with diligence to 6 take all steps necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” CivLR 16.1(b). Similarly, 7 this Court’s Civil Chambers Rules require that any motion to continue a scheduling order 8 deadline include a showing of good cause, supported by a “declaration from counsel that 9 details steps taken by the parties to meet current deadlines and reasons why the parties can 10 no longer meet those deadlines.” J. Torres Civ. Chambers R. VI.D. 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 The basis for the parties’ Joint Motion stems primarily from a need for additional 13 time to complete written discovery and two depositions. In the Joint Motion, the parties 14 represent that since April 2025, the parties met and conferred telephonically and via written 15 communication several times to resolve discovery disputes and exchange necessary 16 discovery. It appears that by mid-May 2025, the parties had reached resolution concerning 17 those discovery disputes, but CMB’s subsequent failure to produce documents pursuant to 18 the parties’ stipulated deadline created challenges in completing discovery, including a 19 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The parties further contend that the addition of new cross-claims 20 by Amaca against CMB necessitate an extension to accommodate discovery on these 21 claims. 22 Based on a review of the Joint Motion and record, and good cause appearing, the 23 Court GRANTS IN PART the Joint Motion. Considering the parties’ efforts to complete 24 discovery and resolve discovery disputes, coupled with the recent introduction of new cross 25 claims, good cause exists for extending current case deadlines. However, the parties are 26 advised that no further continuances will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. 27 As to the parties’ request to extend the deadline to July 21, 2025 to raise a discovery 28 dispute, the parties’ request is DENIED. CMB served the relevant discovery responses on 1 March 31, 2025, more than 45 days before the parties filed the Joint Motion on June 12, 2 2025. See J. Torres Civ. Chambers R. VIII.E (setting 45-day deadline to raise discovery 3 disputes). While the Court appreciates the parties’ efforts to resolve this dispute, it appears 4 that CMB has repeatedly failed to comply with the parties’ agreed upon deadlines to 5 produce documents, a privilege log, and amended interrogatory responses, creating 6 discovery delays. Accordingly, the parties SHALL raise with the Court any remaining 7 discovery disputes concerning the discovery responses served by CMB on March 31, 2025, 8 including its production of documents and a privilege log, by no later than June 27, 2025. 9 IV. MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER 10 The Court ORDERS as follows: 11 1. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by August 22, 2025. 12 The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph below 13 governing fact discovery. 14 2. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by August 22, 2025. 15 “Completed” means that all discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30-36, and discovery 16 subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance 17 of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the 18 times for service, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19 Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer regarding all discovery disputes 20 in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to 21 resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the 22 parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel shall follow the procedures 23 governing discovery disputes set forth in Judge Torres’ Civil Chambers Rules. A failure 24 to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 25 order of the Court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 26 recognized by the Court. 27 28 1 3. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) shall be conducted by Zoom 2 video conferencing on August 26, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. 3 Torres.1 4 a. The following are mandatory procedures to be followed in preparation for 5 the MSC. Absent express permission from this Court, counsel must timely comply with 6 the dates and deadlines herein. Questions regarding the MSC or the mandatory guidelines 7 set forth herein may be directed to Judge Torres’ Chambers at (619) 557-6384. 8 b. Full Settlement Authority Required. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.c.1, all 9 parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured parties, and the 10 principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation must participate in the MSC.2 This 11 appearance must be made with full and complete authority to negotiate and enter into a 12 binding settlement.3 Counsel for a government entity is excused from this requirement if 13 the government attorney who participates in the MSC (i) has primary responsibility for 14 handling the case, and (ii) may negotiate settlement offers that the attorney is willing to 15 recommend to the government official having ultimate settlement authority. 16 17 18 1 Counsel may request the MSC be converted to an in-person appearance through a joint 19 call or email to Judge Torres’ Chambers (efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov). Counsel must meet and confer prior to making such a request. 20 2 The attendance requirement includes parties that are indemnified by others. Any 21 deviation from this Order requires prior Court approval. 22 3 Full authority to settle means that the individuals at the MSC are authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable 23 to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th 24 Cir. 1989). Party participants need to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 25 485-486 (D. Ariz. 2003). One of the purposes of requiring a person with complete 26 settlement authority to attend the conference is that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face-to-face conference. Id. at 486. Limited or sum certain 27 authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595-597 (8th 28 Cir. 2001). 1 c. Confidential Settlement Brief. No later than seven (7) calendar days 2 before the MSC, each party must lodge a Confidential Settlement Brief by email to 3 efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov. The Confidential Settlement Brief should not exceed ten 4 (10) pages, excluding exhibits, and must be formatted according to the requirements of 5 Local Rule 5.1(a). Parties attaching exhibits must attach only the relevant pages of multi- 6 page exhibits and must highlight the relevant portions. 7 d. Contents of Settlement Brief. All Confidential Settlement Briefs shall 8 include the content specified in the Court’s Chambers Rules, available at 9 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/torres/docs/Civil%20Chambers%20Rules.pdf. 10 4. Procedure for Zoom Videoconference. Two (2) business days prior to the 11 MSC, the Court will email counsel of record an invitation with the Zoom meeting 12 information. Participants can join the Zoom video conference by following the ZoomGov 13 Meeting hyperlink or using the meeting ID and password provided. Each participant should 14 plan to join the Zoom video conference at least five (5) minutes before the start of the 15 MSC. Counsel is responsible for ensuring their clients can participate in the MSC. All 16 participants must display the same level of professionalism and attention during the MSC 17 as if they were attending in person (e.g., not be driving while speaking to the Court, or 18 otherwise distracted). 19 5. All pre-trial motions must be filed by September 5, 2025. Counsel for the 20 moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 21 hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 22 hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 23 to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 24 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 25 district judge. 26 6. If the trial will be a bench trial, counsel shall file their Memoranda of 27 Contentions of Fact and Law and take any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) 28 1 by December 22, 2025. Counsel do not need to file Memoranda of Contentions of Fact 2 and Law if the trail will be a jury trial. 3 7. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by December 22, 2025. Failure to comply with these disclosure 5 requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 37. 7 8. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by 8 December 29, 2025. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 9 stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 10 exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. 11 The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall 12 note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. 13 P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference 14 order. 15 9. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 16 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By 17 January 5, 2026, plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed 18 pretrial order for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with 19 plaintiff’s counsel concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and 20 both parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 21 10. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 22 other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served, and 23 lodged with the assigned district judge by January 12, 2026, and shall be in the form 24 prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 25 11. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 26 Benjamin J. Cheeks on January 22, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. 27 12. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 28 and magistrate judge. 1 13. A post-trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 2 || within 30 days of verdict in the case. 3 14. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 4 || shown. 5 15. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 6 || shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. No 7 ||reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. 8 || Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents 9 a table of authorities cited. 10 16. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this case 11 || hereafter. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° 13 Dated: June 20, 2025 [reck— 14 Honorable Valerie E. Torres United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28