Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v…
Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v. AECOM
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:18-cv-07345
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Operating Engineers v. AECOM, Judge Corley denied AECOM’s motion to continue pretrial deadlines because it lacked diligence and good cause.
AECOM’s request for a 60-day extension was denied, and the parties remained subject to the existing pretrial schedule, with a May 28, 2021 deadline for bringing certain discovery disputes to the court.
What happened
Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California and other plaintiffs sued AECOM. The court had repeatedly extended pretrial deadlines while the parties pursued settlement negotiations.
AECOM asked for a 60-day extension of all pretrial deadlines, saying the parties had agreed to pause discovery and that it needed time to take depositions. The court found no support for an agreement to pause discovery.
Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley denied the motion because AECOM had not shown good cause or diligence. The court also required any disputes about outstanding written discovery to be submitted by joint letter by May 28, 2021.
The detailed version
- Operating Engineers Health And Welfare Trust Fund For Northern California v… · No. 3:18-cv-07345
- Jacquelyn Corley
- May 7, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs sued AECOM, identified in the caption as a Delaware corporation. The court had continued the pretrial deadlines several times, following the parties’ stipulation and to give them time to complete settlement negotiations. Most recently, on January 15, 2021, the court extended the fact-discovery deadline to April 26, 2021.
On that same date, AECOM moved to continue all pretrial deadlines for 60 days. AECOM asserted that the parties had agreed to pause discovery during settlement negotiations and that it needed additional time to take depositions.
Court’s Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a party seeking to modify a scheduling order must show good cause. The court concluded that AECOM had not shown good cause and had not been diligent. It also found that the record did not support an agreement to pause discovery and that the court had not agreed to stay discovery.
Ruling
The court DENIED AECOM’s motion to continue the pretrial deadlines. It further ordered that any discovery disputes concerning outstanding written discovery requests be presented in a joint discovery-dispute letter on or before May 28, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.