Anderson et al v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02172

ORDER DENYING {{238}} Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on September 27, 2018. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARC ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. ADJUST CASE SCHEDULE 10 SEAWORLD PARKS AND Re: Dkt. No. 238 ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Now before the Court for consideration is Plaintiffs' motion to adjust the scheduling order 14 issued in this case. Defendant opposes Plaintiffs' motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 16, "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. 16 Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This Court's scheduling order requires a showing of "very good cause." (Dkt. 17 No. 216.) The primary inquiry is Plaintiffs' diligence, although the Court also may consider 18 whether Defendant would be prejudiced by an adjustment to the schedule. See Johnson v. 19 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). If, however, the Court concludes 20 a party has not been diligent, the inquiry should end. Id. 21 The Court recognizes that SeaWorld produced a large number of documents in July and 22 August of this year and that Plaintiffs were required to seek relief from Chief Magistrate Judge 23 Spero, who is supervising discovery, before the bulk of SeaWorld's document production was 24 complete. Plaintiffs also agreed to this schedule when SeaWorld requested additional time to 25 produce the documents, and they may not have been aware of the exact content of the documents 26 they were requesting. However, the Court does not find persuasive Plaintiffs' argument that they 27 did not have an understanding of the nature of the documents at issue. In addition, Plaintiffs have 28 been aware of the volume of documents at issue based on the meet and confer efforts with 1 Deefendant. Th he Court con ncludes that Plaintiffs P havve not met thheir burden to show thatt good causee 2 exiists to extend d the deadlin nes the Court has set with th respect to fact and exppert discoverry. 3 Accord dingly, the Court DENIE ES the motionn. 4 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 5 Daated: Septem mber 27, 2018 8 6 __________________________________________ JEFFFREY S. W WHITE 7 Unnited States D District Judgge 8 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2