1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIHAN, INC., et al., Case No.: 20-CV-97-LAB-WVG

12 Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO

13 v. AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER TO

CONTINUE FACT WITNESS

14 AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,

DISCOVERY FOR 90 DAYS

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is the Parties’ August 20, 2020 Joint Motion to Amend 20 Scheduling Order to Continue Fact Witness Discovery for 90 Days (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. 21 No. 12.) In relevant part, the Parties move the Court to continue the August 21, 2020 fact 22 discovery cut-off for 90 days to allow Defendant to inspect the subject property and take 23 the depositions of Plaintiff’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”), insurance 24 representatives, and a host of fact witnesses. In so requesting, the Parties note they “have 25 met and conferred and both sides are agreeable to amending the Scheduling Order to 26 continue the Fact Discovery deadline for a period of 90 days.” (Id., 3:1-3.) The Court 27 DENIES the Parties’ Joint Motion in its entirety, as explained immediately below. 28 On April 17, 2020, this Court issued the operative Scheduling Order Regulating 1 Discovery and Other Pre-Trial Proceedings (“Scheduling Order”). (Doc. No. 19.) Amongst 2 other deadlines, the Court set an August 21, 2020 cut-off for fact discovery. Since the 3 Court’s issuance of the Scheduling Order, the Parties have been entirely reticent on their 4 discovery efforts and challenges, with the exception of their instant Joint Motion, which 5 was filed at the proverbial eleventh hour. Glaringly, the Joint Motion appears to assume 6 that, simply because the Parties have stipulated to a 90-day continuance of the fact 7 discovery cut-off, the Court should readily accept such stipulation and modify its 8 Scheduling Order accordingly. The Parties gambled on the Court’s generosity. The gamble 9 failed. 10 At all times, the Parties bear the burden of establishing their diligence in fully 11 complying with the deadlines set by this Court when bringing a motion to modify the 12 operative Scheduling Order. Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make this 13 clear. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). On March 25, 2020, the Court reminded the Parties of Rule 14 16(b)’s rigors in denying the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Early Neutral Evaluation 15 Conference and Related Case Management Deadlines. (Doc. No. 7.) Nevertheless, the 16 Parties demonstrate for a second time they are remiss in bringing a sufficiently pleaded 17 motion to modify deadlines governing this matter. To that end, the Joint Motion is bereft 18 of any showing of diligence in their discovery efforts, except for a passing remark that “the 19 parties recently served supplemental discovery responses and anticipate producing 20 supplemental responsive documents.” (Doc. No. 12, 2:21-23.) 21 Far more proof of diligence is needed to demonstrate the Parties made earnest efforts 22 to comply with the dates set forth in the April 17, 2020 Scheduling Order. Matrix Motor 23 Co. v. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, 218 F.R.D. 667, 671 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (noting the 24 good cause standard is primarily informed by the movant’s diligence in attempting to fully 25 comply with the deadlines set by the court). Failure to make this requisite showing 26 terminates the Court’s inquiry into whether it is appropriate to grant the Parties’ requested 27 relief. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087–88 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, 28 the Court DENIES the Parties Joint Motion. The August 21, 2020 fact discovery cut-off 1 || shall remain in effect up to and including 11:59 p.m. on this day and not a minute longer. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: August 21, 2020 Se LM Ss 5 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28