1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LISA WIETFELT, Case No.: 21-CV-1684-CAB(WVG)

11 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION

12 v. SEEKING TO EXTEND DEADLINE

FOR FACT DISCOVERY ONLY

13 COMDATA et al.,

14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 On April 6, 2022, the Parties filed a Joint Motion Seeking to Extend Deadline for 19 Fact Discovery Only (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. No. 18.) The Joint Motion requested the 20 Court extend the fact discovery deadline 60 days. For the reasons set forth below, the Joint 21 Motion is DENIED. 22 As provided in the Court’s Scheduling Order, the dates and times set forth in the 23 Scheduling Order will not be modified except for good cause shown. In determining 24 whether to modify a scheduling order the Court considers the “good cause” standard set 25 out by Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 16(b)(4)”). Rule 26 16(b)(4) provides a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 27 consent. Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the 28 party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it 1 cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson 2 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment); Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck 4 Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 469 (D.N.J.1990); Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 5 132 F.R.D. 213, 217 (N.D.Ind.1990); Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C. 6 1987); 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d 7 ed. 1990) (“good cause” means scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s 8 diligence). Moreover, Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires all counsel “take all steps 9 necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” Civ. L.R. 16.1(b). 10 The Court finds the Parties have not made a diligent effort to conduct discovery 11 within the Scheduling Order’s deadlines. At the December 21, 2022, Case Management 12 Conference the Parties discussed with the Court all dates and deadlines to be included in 13 the Scheduling Order. The Parties agreed without objection to the Scheduling Order, 14 including the fact discovery deadline of May 20, 2022. The Scheduling Order was issued 15 on the same day. (Doc. No. 15.) Yet discovery did not begin until February 24, 2022, two 16 months after the Scheduling Order issued. When discovery did start, it was incomplete as 17 Plaintiff only propounded discovery to Defendant Comdata. Plaintiff did not propound 18 discovery to Defendant FleetCor until March 16, 2022 – almost three months after the 19 Scheduling Order was issued. The Joint Motion does not state when Defendants 20 propounded discovery to Plaintiff but the response deadline of May 6, 2022 seemingly 21 suggests the discovery was not propounded until April 6, 2022. The Joint Motion fails to 22 address why the Parties delayed the start of any discovery for two months when the fact 23 discovery period is only five months long. There were also no reasons provided to explain 24 why depositions have not been noticed. The Parties have not demonstrated due diligence 25 in conducting the discovery that has been exchanged to date, nor have they demonstrated 26 with due diligence why they cannot complete discovery in the time remaining. 27 The Court finds no good cause exists as the Parties delayed the start of discovery for 28 two months and are now seeking a 60-day extension to recoup that time. The Court | ||reaffirms the deadlines and due dates in its Scheduling Order and the Joint Motion is 2 || DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||DATED: April 7, 2022 | Se 5 6 Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28