“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving 9 party’s reasons for seeking modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 10 end.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving 9 party’s reasons for seeking modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 10 end.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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 RESOLVING OPPOSED
Plaintiffs, JOINT MOTION AND DENYING
14
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
v.
15 VACATE MANDATORY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND
16
REMAINING PRETRIAL
Defendants.
17 DEADLINES
18
[ECF No. 147]
19
20 Before the Court is the parties’ opposed joint motion to vacate the Mandatory
21 Settlement Conference (“MSC”) and remaining pretrial deadlines. ECF No. 147.
22 Defendants seek an order from the Court vacating the upcoming MSC, which is presently
23 set for September 30, 2025, and vacating all remaining pretrial deadlines, including the
24 October 3, 2025, pretrial conference and the November 3, 2025, trial. Id. at 1–4. Plaintiffs
25 oppose or, in the alternative, seek a continuance of the dates instead. Id. at 4–5.
26 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good
27 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with
28 the judge’s consent”); see also Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance
1 requires “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). Courts have broad discretion in
2 determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
3 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012
4 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that
5 has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon
6 Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on
7 the diligence of the party seeking to amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking
8 modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving
9 party’s reasons for seeking modification.... If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should
10 end.”) (internal citation omitted).
11 Here, Defendants represent that they “cannot evaluate, recommend, or obtain
12 settlement authority for claims” until Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgement (ECF
13 Nos. 109, 110) are decided. ECF No. 147 at 2. Defendants argue that “[c]onducting the
14 MSC while dispositive motions are pending will likely result in an unnecessary waste of
15 the parties’ respective time and resources, in addition to a waste of judicial resources.” Id.
16 Defendants also contend that the uncertainty impacts their ability to discuss settlement
17 authority with the County Board of Supervisors. Id. at 3. As such, Defendants request that
18 the September 30, 2025, MSC be vacated. Plaintiffs oppose this request. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs
19 cast doubt on Defendants’ assertions regarding their inability to obtain settlement authority
20 prior to summary judgment motions being decided. Id. Further, Plaintiffs explain that the
21 arguments set forth in the summary judgment motions regarding qualified immunity no
22 longer require delay, as Plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal of the only defendant who
23 raised qualified immunity. Id.
24 Regarding the remaining dates in the case, Defendants seek a Court order vacating
25 all scheduling order deadlines until after the summary judgment motions have been
26 decided. Id. at 3–4. Defendants argue that “[t]he content of the disclosures, memorandums,
27 and the pretrial conference order coming due will depend on the outcome of the pending
28 motions, as does what will and should be discussed at the Rule 16.1 meeting.” Id. at 3.
1 Plaintiffs oppose this request as well. Id. Plaintiffs explain that they have “already
2 expended significant time focusing their efforts on this matter” and seek to proceed with
3 trial as soon as possible while “witnesses are available and memories are fresher.” Id. In
4 the alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court continue the deadlines in lieu of vacating
5 them. Id. at 5.
6 Upon due consideration, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to vacate the MSC
7 and remaining pretrial deadlines. ECF No. 147. The MSC on September 30, 2025, is
8 approximately one month away, so any contention that the summary judgment motions
9 will not be ruled on in time is premature. The Court also is not fully persuaded that rulings
10 on the summary judgment motions are a necessary prerequisite to meaningful settlement
11 discussions. The Court will, however, slightly modify the pre-MSC deadlines.1 Regarding
12
13
1 The Court modifies the pre-conference deadlines as follows:
14 1. No later than September 25, 2025, each party must submit to the Court via email
(not filed) (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, titles, and email addresses of all
15
attendees. Court staff will then email all participants detailed instructions regarding the location
16 of the Court’s conference rooms.
2. Plaintiffs must serve on Defendants a written settlement proposal, which must
17 include a specific demand amount, no later than September 17, 2025.
3. The Defendants must respond to the Plaintiffs in writing with a specific offer
18
amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties should not file or otherwise copy the
19 Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties must include their written settlement proposals in
their respective Settlement Conference Statements to the Court.
20
4. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person or by phone no later than
21 September 22, 2025.
5. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will be served
22 on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than September 25, 2025. The Statement
must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The
23
substance of the Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s
24 Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located at
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Mandatory%20Settlement%2
25
0Conference%20Rules.pdf).
26 6. Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter for the
Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than September 25, 2025. The Letter
27 must be lodged in .pdf format via email to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a
party choose to prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must comply
28
1 ||the remaining pretrial deadlines, the Court notes that the Pretrial Conference Order and
2 || objections to pretrial disclosures are due on September 26, 2025, over three weeks away.
3 || Any contention that the summary judgment motions will not be ruled on in time is also
4 ||speculative and premature. As such, the Court does not find good cause to vacate the
5 pretrial dates and deadlines at this time. The denial of the instant motion is without
6 || prejudice to refiling at a later date.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated: September 3, 2025
5 Mpwuor H. Xyvolart
Honorable Allison H. Goddard
10 United States Magistrate Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28