1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY Case No.: 21-CV-1195-GPC-WVG

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

12

ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION

Plaintiff, 13 AND MOTION TO EXTEND EARLY v. DISCLOSURE DEADLINE IN 14

COURT’S ORDER FOR VIDEO

ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE

15 EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION

COMPANY (U.S.), INC.,

CONFERENCE AND CASE

16 Defendant. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 17

18 On August 17, 2021, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Extend Early 19 Disclosure Deadline in Court’s Order for Video Early Neutral Evaluation Conference and 20 Case Management Conference (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. No. 8.) The Parties move the Court 21 to continue the August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange initial disclosures to 45 days after 22 the September 22, 2021 Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) and Case 23 Management Conference (“CMC”). (Id., 2: 5-11.) Two reasons underlie the Joint Motion: 24 (1) despite their “diligent” efforts, the Parties “cannot have [documents for initial 25 disclosures] ready in time to exchange them on August 27, 2021;” and (2) “the Parties 26 would like to focus their attention on the possibility of settlement prior to engaging in 27 potential costly early disclosures.” (Id., 2: 7-14.) Neither of these reasons meet the good 28 1 ||cause standard under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For this reason, 2 Court DENIES without prejudice the Parties’ Joint Motion. 3 “Good cause may be found where the moving party shows it assisted the court with A creating a workable scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the scheduling order's 5 || deadlines due to matters not reasonably foreseeable at the time the scheduling order issued, 6 ||and that it was diligent in seeking a modification once it became apparent it could not 7 ||comply with the scheduling order.” Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. 8 2021 WL 2577144, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2021) (citing Sharp v. Covenant Care, 9 || LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2012) [internal citations omitted]). 10 The Parties’ Joint Motion is too scant to permit a finding of good cause. As a 11 ||threshold matter, it is unclear what particular steps the Parties have taken to meet the 12 || August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange initial disclosures. A bald statement of diligence is 13 ||no substitute for a fact-specific showing of diligence. Further, the Court cannot properly 14 || assess why an exception to Rule 26(f) is appropriate, such that the deadline to exchange 15 ||initial disclosures should be continued to a time following the ENE and CMC. Citing to 16 || cost without explanation and failing to offer any supporting legal authority obstructs the 17 || Court’s evaluation of the Parties’ request. Accordingly, the Court has no basis upon which 18 |/to find good cause and declines to continue the August 27, 2021 deadline to exchange 19 initial disclosures for such reason. The Parties’ Joint Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 20 || Dated: August 20, 2021 | Se 21 7 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28