In re: McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation

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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re McKinsey & Co., Inc. National
Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation
This Document Relates to:
Hurley v. McKinsey & Company, Inc.,
No. 3:22-cv-3241
Case No. 21-md-02996-CRB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER
Regarding Dkt. No. 989
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kim’s Discovery Order (Dkt. 970), the
Parties’ Joint Statement Concerning the Discovery Dispute (Dkt. 934), Plaintiff Hurley’s
Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order (Dkt. No. 989), and McKinsey’s
Opposition (Dkt. No. 1007). Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the case management order
after fact and expert discovery deadlines had passed. 	Judge Kim denied the motion,
finding that “Plaintiff fail[ed] to show good cause for the request to extend the discovery
deadlines. 	In addition, Defendants show prejudice in the form of increased costs and
burden.” 	Dkt. 970. 	Plaintiff argues that Judge Kim’s Order was contrary to law because
there was good cause, and that there was no prejudice to Defendants that outweighed
Plaintiff’s needs.
The Court disagrees with Plaintiff, finds that Judge Kim’s Order was not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law, and agrees with Judge Kim that Plaintiff has failed to show
good cause to extend the discovery deadlines. Plaintiff’s request for an extension was filed
after the fact and expert deadlines had passed. Plaintiff points to several pending Motions
– a Motion to Dismiss, a Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order Regarding
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 1015 Filed 08/27/26 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
the Deposition of McKinsey’s General Counsel, and a Motion for Spoliation Sanctions –
as good cause for the extension. 	But Plaintiff fails to show how a pending Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendants impeded her ability to conduct discovery; indeed, prior to
Plaintiff’s request for an extension, discovery continued for almost a year while the Motion
was pending. 	The case management order allows for the deposition of McKinsey’s
General Counsel after the discovery deadline has passed. And Plaintiff fails to show how a
resolution of the Motion for Sanctions would impact discovery one way or the other.
Finally, the purported deficiencies Plaintiff identified of McKinsey’s 30(b)(6) deposition
do not rise to the level needed to extend all fact discovery deadlines. In contrast, an
extension would prejudice Defendants by increasing the burden and expense of discovery.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
August 27, 2026
Case 3:21-md-02996-CRB Document 1015 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 2