Orthopaedic Hospital v. DJO Global, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00970-JLS-AHG

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

v. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION

TO EXTEND CASE SCHEDULE

DJO GLOBAL, INC. and DJO

FINANCE, LLC,

15 Defendants. [ECF No. 66]

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Opposed Joint Motion on DJO’s Request 18 for an Extension of Case Schedule. ECF No. 66. Defendants DJO Global, Inc. and DJO 19 Finance, LLC request a two-month extension of the dates set forth in the Court’s Case 20 Management Order (ECF No. 41). Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request. 21 Under Fed. R. Civ. P 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause 22 and with the judge’s consent.” See also ECF No. 41 ¶ 30 (providing that the dates in the 23 Case Management Order would not be modified “except for good cause shown”). “Good 24 cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and 25 statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th…