Amazing Ins., Inc. v. DiManno, 2:19-cv-01349

Amazing Insurance, Inc. filed this action against Michael DiManno and Accuire, LLC; the case includes third‑party defendants and counterclaims.
The court issued an initial pretrial scheduling order and the parties have repeatedly consented to extensions; the docket reflects numerous prior agreed extensions through ECF No. 103.
The parties have exchanged discovery, completed many depositions, and expect additional supplemental responses and multiple remaining depositions.
A pending Motion to Consolidate (Case No. 2:18‑cv‑02066‑TLN‑CKD) is scheduled for hearing and could alter discovery responsibilities and deadlines.
Because of ongoing discovery and the consolidation motion, the parties jointly moved the court to extend discovery and related deadlines; the parties consented to the proposed new schedule.
The court granted the consent motion on May 11, 2022, modifying deadlines (discovery cut‑off extended to August 13, 2022; initial expert disclosures to October 13, 2022; expert disclosures to November 12, 2022; dispositive motions to December 28, 2022).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should modify the pretrial discovery deadlines	Parties request extension due to ongoing discovery, supplemental responses, remaining depositions, and pending consolidation motion	Defendants consented to the extension and do not oppose the requested modifications	Court granted the consent motion and extended the deadlines as requested
Standard for modifying a pretrial order	Court may modify pretrial orders for good cause; parties point to Ninth Circuit precedent supporting district court discretion	Defendants agree that the good cause standard applies and is met here	Court applied the broad discretion/good cause standard and relied on Ninth Circuit authority in granting the motion
Effect of the pending consolidation motion on scheduling	Consolidation could change discovery responsibilities and timelines, justifying a short extension	Defendants concur that consolidation counsel would affect scheduling and agree to the requested dates	Court considered the consolidation motion as a factor and approved the schedule change

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court has broad discretion supervising pretrial phase)
Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1985) (district court discretion in pretrial management)
Amerisourcebergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 445 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2006) (pretrial order may be modified upon showing of good cause)
El‑Hakem v. BJY Inc., 415 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) (good cause standard for modifying pretrial orders)
Zivkovic v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (pretrial order controls course of action absent modification for good cause)
Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co., 400 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court authority to manage and modify pretrial orders)