Koeppel, as an individual ad as Trustee for the Koeppel Family Trust et al v. Wilker et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GARY MERLE KOEPPEL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN WILKER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-06457-NW
ORDER STRIKING DAUBERT
MOTION
Re: ECF No. 59
On June 13, 2025, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the dispositive and Daubert
motion filing deadline as October 14, 2025, and the dispositive motion hearing deadline as
December 17, 2025. ECF No. 27. Because neither party filed any dispositive or Daubert motions
by October 14, 2025 (or anytime thereafter), the Court vacated the December 17, 2025, hearing set
aside for the parties. When vacating the hearing on December 9, 2025, the docket text expressly
reminded the parties that “[a]ll other dates set pursuant to [the scheduling order at ECF No.] 27
remain[ed] as scheduled.” ECF No. 40. On January 20, 2026, more than three months after the
dispositive motion filing deadline had passed, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion to exclude
testimony of Defendants’ expert witness Hansen under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and
Daubert. ECF No. 59 (“Motion”).
A court’s scheduling order “must limit the time to . . . file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(3)(A). Once entered, the scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig.,
715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373
(2015). The Ninth Circuit has articulated the good cause standard as follows:
Case 5:24-cv-06457-NW Document 62 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence
of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify
the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension. Moreover, carelessness
is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for
a grant of relief. Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the
party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to
deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s
reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the
inquiry should end.
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted); see also W. States Wholesale, 715 F. 3d at 737 (reaffirming “good
cause” standard articulated in Johnson).
Here, Plaintiffs have not moved to modify the dispositive motion filing deadline set by the
Court’s scheduling order and offered no good cause for filing a Daubert motion more than three
months after that deadline. To the contrary, Plaintiffs’ decision to file their motion without
seeking leave of court, or referencing the existence of a deadline long-since expired, makes a
finding of diligence under Rule 16(b) impossible. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. And, because
the Court has found that Plaintiffs were not diligent, the “good cause” inquiry ends, and the Court
need not inquire as to the degree of prejudice suffered by Defendant. See id.
The Court STRIKES AS UNTIMELY Plaintiffs’ Motion, and Plaintiffs are ORDERED
not to refile the Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-06457-NW Document 62 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2