ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATES [ECF No. 32]

BARBARA L. MAJOR, Magistrate Judge.

On October 1, 2018, the parties filed a "STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF DATES AND ORDER." ECF No. 32. The parties seek to extend the fact discovery deadline by ninety days, from October 17, 2018 until January 31, 2018. Id. at 1, 2, 5. In support, the parties state that "[s]ince the April 27, 2018 Scheduling Order was entered in this matter, a trial in a San Diego Superior Court financial elder abuse and legal malpractice case in which defense counsel represents the plaintiff was set for a date certain to begin on October 22, 2018 and is anticipated to last at least two weeks." Id. at 3. In further support, the parties state that "[d]efense counsel's firm is comprised of three attorneys" and that their "calendar for the month of October is now consumed with preparing for and trying [that case]." Id. The parties also note that "a related action is currently pending in arbitration through JAMS." Id. at 4. The parties state that they have "agreed that, for the purposes of discovery, the discovery conducted in the arbitration would be coordinated with the Federal Court matter to promote efficiency and economy." Id. However, "[n]o discovery deadline dates have been imposed in the binding arbitration matter and the parties are scheduled for the Follow-Up Hearing on November 2, 2018." Id.

Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified only "for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also ECF No. 15 at 5 (stating that dates and times "will not be modified except for good cause shown"). The Rule 16 good cause standard focuses on the "reasonable diligence" of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for "good cause" based primarily on diligence of moving party). Essentially, "the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking modification." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court also may consider the "existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification. . . ." Id.

The parties have failed to establish good cause for continuing the remaining deadlines by ninety days. The parties have not demonstrated diligence. For example, Plaintiff did not serve any discovery in this case until September 6, 2018. ECF No. 30 at 3. Additionally, there is no basis to delay this case in order to coordinate with the related arbitration, especially since the next hearing in the arbitration is not until November 2, 2018. Id. at 4. However, given the current status of the case and because defense counsel's firm is comprised of three attorneys and has an upcoming trial, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the parties a short continuance of the deadlines. Accordingly, the parties' motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

All other guidelines and requirements shall remain as previously set. ECF No. 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.