Dolce v. Liberty Mutual Insurace Company
2:22-cv-01434
| D. Nev. | Feb 14, 2023Background
- Joint renewed second motion by Plaintiffs (Brian Dolce et al.) and Defendant Liberty Mutual asking the court to extend scheduling-order deadlines by 60 days under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 26-3.
- Substantial discovery already exchanged: initial disclosures, >3,000 pages of documents, written discovery responses, and subpoenas to 13 medical providers (many responsive records produced).
- Defendant retained experts and performed an IME of Plaintiff Mary Dolce; IMEs of the other plaintiffs (including Brian Dolce) remain unscheduled or incomplete due to scheduling/availability conflicts.
- Outstanding discovery includes completion of all subpoenaed medical records, IMEs for other plaintiffs, exchange of expert reports, and multiple depositions (experts, plaintiffs, defendant representatives, and medical providers).
- Parties represent they have been negotiating discovery logistics to avoid court disputes and contend they have been diligent but cannot complete remaining discovery within current deadlines.
- Proposed revised deadlines in the motion move the dispositive motion deadline and pretrial order deadline each 60 days later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause exists to extend scheduling/discovery deadlines | Plaintiffs: remaining IMEs, outstanding records, expert reports, and depositions cannot reasonably be completed in current time despite diligence. | Liberty Mutual: same joint position; scheduling conflicts (e.g., new employment) and ongoing negotiations justify short extension. | Court granted the requested 60‑day extension (order reflects new deadlines). |
| Whether the parties satisfied Local Rule 26‑3's required showing | Plaintiffs: motion states discovery completed, what remains, reasons for delay, and proposed schedule. | Defendant: joins and provides the same factual support to satisfy the rule. | Court accepted the motion and extended the schedule, indicating the showing was sufficient. |
| Whether the movants demonstrated the requisite diligence under Rule 16(b) | Plaintiffs: identify specific diligence efforts (multiple communications, subpoena follow‑ups, completed IME for one plaintiff). | Defendant: emphasizes cooperative negotiations to schedule IMEs and obtain records. | Court applied the non‑rigorous “good cause” standard and concluded the parties’ diligence supported the extension. |
| Whether a brief extension to permit cooperative discovery avoids unnecessary court intervention | Plaintiffs: negotiations ongoing; extension will allow cooperative completion without disputes. | Defendant: concurs that negotiated scheduling will likely resolve outstanding issues. | Court favored allowing additional cooperative discovery time and issued the extension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing “good cause” as a non‑rigorous standard)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (good cause exists if deadline cannot reasonably be met despite diligence)
- Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (good cause inquiry focuses on movant’s diligence)
- Sali v. Corona Reg. Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2018) (discovery process should be cooperative)
- ProCare Hospice of Nev., LLC v. OneCare Hospice, LLC, 340 F.R.D. 174 (D. Nev. 2021) (discovery should be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the court)