Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno
2:19-cv-01349-DAD-CKD
E.D. Cal.Aug 27, 2021Background
- Parties: Amazing Insurance, Inc. (plaintiff/third-party defendant) moved by consent to extend discovery deadlines against defendants Michael A. DiManno and Accuire, LLC.
- Procedural history: Court issued multiple scheduling orders and prior extensions (ECF Nos. 3, 33, 43, 78, 81, 83, 85, 89); parties previously consented to deadline adjustments.
- Present motion: filed August 26, 2021, requesting short, agreed extensions to complete outstanding discovery (including depositions and expert disclosures).
- New deadlines requested (by stipulation): Discovery to Nov. 15, 2021; Initial expert disclosures to Jan. 14, 2022; Supplemental expert disclosures to Feb. 14, 2022; Dispositive motions to Apr. 1, 2022.
- Counsel conferred and defendants do not oppose; certificate of conferral attached confirming email approval.
- Order: The court signed the consent order on August 27, 2021, granting the agreed extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to modify discovery deadlines | Ongoing, productive discovery; a short extension needed to complete depositions and supplemental responses | Agrees to the proposed short extension (consent) | Court granted the parties' stipulated extension and entered the new deadlines |
| Standard for modifying pretrial order | Court should exercise broad discretion and modify schedule upon showing good cause | Parties emphasize mutual agreement and cooperation; no prejudice asserted | Court applied the district-court discretion / "good cause" standard and approved the modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court has broad discretion supervising the pretrial phase)
- Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1985) (pretrial order modifications reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2006) (pretrial order controls unless good cause shown for modification)
- ElHakem v. BJY Inc., 415 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) (discusses good-cause standard for altering scheduling orders)
- Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (scheduling order modification requires showing of good cause)
- Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co., 400 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2005) (pretrial orders govern scope and course of trial; modifications subject to court discretion)