ORDER VACATING HEARING

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NESTLE USA, INC.'S AND DEFENDANTS MATTHEW CLARK AND LAW OFFICES OF MARK S. NELSON'S JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE AND PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

(Doc. 23)

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Nestlé USA, Inc. and Defendants Matthew Clark and the Law Offices of Mark S. Nelson (collectively, the "Parties") joint motion for an order (1) extending the deadline for the filing of any dispositive motions from January 24, 2020 to March 24, 2020; and (2) extending the date of the pretrial conference from April 21, 2020 to May 21, 2020. (Doc. No. 23.) The Court finds the matter suitable for decision without oral argument and the hearing currently set for February 21, 2020, is HEREBY VACATED. The motion is deemed submitted.1 Local Rule 230(g).

I. Background

This action was initiated on February 8, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 1, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order which, in relevant part, set a deadline of January 24, 2020, for dispositive motions, a date of April 21, 2020, for the pretrial conference, and a date of June 23, 2020, for trial. (Doc. No. 17.)

On January 23, 20202, the parties filed the instant joint motion. According to the moving papers, since the entry of the Scheduling Order the parties have conducted written discovery and Defendants have been allowed several extensions of time in which to respond to discovery due to difficulties obtaining relevant documents on the status of the disputed settlement funds over which Plaintiff seeks to impose an equitable lien. Defendants reportedly produced a significant volume of documentation in mid-November 2019, including bank account statements. Following this production, the parties have been in discussions regarding the responses, potential supplementation of those responses and potential resolution of this matter. (Doc. No. 23 at 3.) The parties represent that in order to facilitate resolution of this matter, they request a brief extension of the disposition and pretrial conference deadlines "to avoid incurring additional attorney's fees and costs which may impede settlement discussions." (Id. at 3.) The parties also aver that additional time will allow them to narrow the potential trial issues. (Id.)

II. Discussion

Pursuant to Rule 16(b), a scheduling order "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The "good cause" standard "primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment." Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may modify the scheduling order "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Id. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end. Id.

Generally, settlement discussions do not constitute good cause justifying modification of the pretrial Scheduling Order. See, e.g., Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Rehrig Pacific Co., No. 11-cv-01273-LJO-BAM, 2013 WL 1164941, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013). However, in this instance, the Court recognizes that discovery documents were not provided until mid-November 2019, and supplemental discovery responses may be necessary to clarify the status of the disputed funds. The Court therefore will permit the modification requested by the parties.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court, having read and considered all of the supporting papers submitted by counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.