Estate of William Hayden Schuck v. County of San Diego

[8] 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [11] 12 ESTATE OF WILLIAM HAYDEN Case No.: 3:23-cv-00785-DMS-AHG SCHUCK, et al., 13 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiffs, DENYING IN PART JOINT [14] MOTION TO CONTINUE v. 15 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., CONFERENCE AND VACATE [16] REMAINING PRETRIAL Defendants. 17 DEADLINES [18] [ECF No. 113] [19] 20 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to modify the scheduling order. ECF 21 No. 113. The parties seek an order from the Court continuing the Mandatory Settlement 22 Conference (“MSC”), which is presently set for September 24, 2025, and vacating all 23 remaining pretrial deadlines, including the October 3, 2025, pretrial conference and the 24 November 3, 2025, trial. Id. 25 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 26 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 27 the judge’s consent”); ECF No. 105 at 4 (Amended Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he 28 dates [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); see also 1 Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause 2 for the request”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. 3 See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); 4 Liguori v. Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747 , at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 5 6, 2012). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 6 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 , 1259 7 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 8 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d 9 at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 10 modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation 11 omitted). 12 Here, the parties represent that Plaintiffs’ counsel has a trial in another matter in 13 mid-September, and is thus unavailable for the September 24, 2025, MSC. ECF No. 113 14 at 2. Plaintiff elaborated via email to court staff that “[t]rial call is on September 19 and we 15 expect it to last at least through the following week. I would not think it would go too long 16 into the week of the 29th if at all, but it’s hard to say. It’s a partial retrial[.]” Email to 17 Chambers (June 9, 2025, at 10:43 AM). Also, the parties represent that the outcome of 18 Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgement (ECF Nos. 109, 110) and Plaintiffs’ Motion 19 for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence (ECF No. 111) “will impact how the parties plan 20 to proceed[.]” ECF No. 113 at 2. Thus, an MSC before the rulings are issued on those 21 motions may not be fruitful. Further, the parties seek an order vacating the remaining case 22 management deadlines, such as the pretrial conference and trial, in light of the pending 23 dispositive motions. Id. 24 Upon due consideration, and upon discussion with the District Judge in this matter, 25 the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ joint motion. ECF 26 No. 113. In light of the trial conflict, the Court finds good cause to continue the MSC. 27 However, the court does not find good cause to continue the pretrial conference or trial. 28 The motions have not yet been ruled on, but they will be fully briefed by July 25, 2025 (see 1 ECF No. 114), which is two months before the pretrial conference. As such, any contention 2 that the motions will not be ruled on in time is premature. The Court will, however, modify 3 the pretrial conference deadlines to better comply with the current pretrial conference date. 4 The Court orders the following: 5 1. Counsel shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law and take 6 any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) by September 5, 2025. 7 2. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by September 5, 2025. Failure to comply with these disclosure 9 requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 37 . 11 3. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by 12 September 12, 2025. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 13 stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 14 exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. 15 The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall 16 note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. 17 P. 26 (a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference 18 order. 19 4. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 20 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By 21 September 19, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed 22 pretrial order for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with 23 plaintiff’s attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and 24 both parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 25 5. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 26 other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and 27 lodged with the assigned district judge by September 26, 2025, and shall be in the form 28 prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 1 6. An all-day, in-person Mandatory Settlement Conference is CONTINUED 2 from September 24, 2025, to October 1, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable 3 Allison H. Goddard1 on the fifth floor of the Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 221 4 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101. The Court requires the personal, in-person 5 attendance of all parties, party representatives with full2 settlement authority, including 6 claims adjusters for insured defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for the 7 litigation at the conference. No later than September 24, 2025, each party must submit to 8 the Court via email (not filed) (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, titles, and 9 email addresses of all attendees. Court staff will then email all participants detailed 10 instructions regarding the location of the Court’s conference rooms. Plaintiffs must serve 11 on Defendants a written settlement proposal, which must include a specific demand 12 amount, no later than September 12, 2025. The defendants must respond to the plaintiff 13 in writing with a specific offer amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties 14 should not file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties must 15 include their written settlement proposals in their respective Settlement Conference 16 Statements to the Court. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person or by phone 17 no later than September 19, 2025. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference [19] 1 Upon receipt of a joint email (to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) containing a firm date [20] for private mediation and the name of the mediator, the settlement conference will come 21 off calendar. [22] 2 The Court reminds the parties that parties and party representatives with full and complete 23 authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present at the MSC. Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to [24] agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., 25 Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman [26] v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481 , 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain 27 authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590 , 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person who is not present at the MSC before [28] 1 Statement, which will be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later 2 ||than September 24, 2025. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 3 || efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of the Settlement Conference 4 ||Statement must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference 5 Rules (located at 6 || https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard% 20Mandatory% 20Settlem 7 || ent% 20Conference%20Rules.pdf). Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential 8 Settlement Letter for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than 9 ||September 24, 2025. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 10 || efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a party choose to prepare a Letter, 11 || the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s 12 ||Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules. All parties are ordered to read and to fully 13 ||comply with the Chambers Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of 14 || Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 15 7. The final Pretrial Conference remains scheduled on the calendar of the 16 ||Honorable Dana M. Sabraw on October 3, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. The trial remains 17 || scheduled to start on November 3, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: June 9, 2025 00 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 21 United States Magistrate Judge