Kristen Burnham v. United States
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Kristen Burnham (“Burnham”) appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of the United States. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here.
I
We review the district court’s decisions concerning discovery for an abuse of discretion. Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757 , 768 n. 10 (9th Cir.2008). Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Good cause exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 Advisory Comm.’s Notes (1983 Am.). The same standard applies for modifying a scheduling order on remand. See Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922 , 940 n. 16 (9th Cir.2008). Because Burnham was not diligent in meeting the expert disclosure and fact discovery deadlines, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that good cause did not exist for modifying the scheduling order to allow for new disclosures and additional discovery.