Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants the parties’ joint motion to extend discovery and related pretrial deadlines by 30 days. The order finds good cause based on delays caused by corrupted data requiring re-extraction and sets revised deadlines for document production, depositions, expert disclosures and discovery, and pretrial motions.
Holdings
- The parties demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order because they acted diligently and the requested extension was supported by documented production delays and the need to review more than one million pages.
- The court ordered document production to be completed by November 13, 2025; depositions to occur no later than December 15, 2025; expert designations and Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(B) disclosures by January 13, 2026; rebuttal-expert disclosures by February 10, 2026; expert discovery by March 10, 2026; and other pretrial motions by April 6, 2026.
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order and extend discovery and related deadlines.
- What revised document-production, deposition, expert-disclosure, expert-discovery, and pretrial-motion deadlines should govern the case.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Olvera v. Citibank, N.A., No. 25-cv-789-H-AHG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117769, at *2, *4-*5 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2025)(followed)
- Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 16-cv-1103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…