Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEREK L. MOBLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WORKDAY, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00770-RFL
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL TO FILE REPLY
EXPLAINING THEIR DELAY AND
PLAN TO AVOID FUTURE DELAY,
SUCH AS THROUGH ASSOCIATION
OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL
Re: Dkt. No. 232
This is an important case alleging use of biased artificial intelligence in hiring implicating
potentially hundreds of millions of putative class members. Despite the scope and significance
of the case, Plaintiffs’ counsel appear to have done little to complete the discovery needed for
their class certification motion, though their motion is due in two days. Counsel’s conduct raises
serious questions as to their likely adequacy to represent the proposed class and the collective,
absent a significant change in their approach or a decision to associate other counsel.
On June 4, 2025, the Court adopted the parties’ proposed extension of the class
certification deadlines in this case. (Dkt. No. 138.) Under the scheduling order, Plaintiffs’
motion for class certification was due January 16, 2026. (Id.) One week before their class
certification motion was due, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Change Time, seeking to extend the
class certification deadlines by six months. (Dkt. No. 232 (“Motion”).) Plaintiffs assert that
Workday’s class certification-related production was delayed and/or incomplete, and as a result
Plaintiffs have had to postpone “virtually all depositions.” (Id. ¶¶ 4–6, 8–10.) For example,
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 235 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiffs assert that they are still awaiting production of “bias audit documents, data and
analysis,” and that Workday produced a privilege log only “a few days ago.” (Id. ¶¶ 6, 9.)
Workday responds by submitting evidence strongly suggesting that Plaintiffs’ counsel
has been asleep at the wheel for the past seven months with respect to discovery. (Dkt. No. 233.)
For example, Plaintiffs have not issued any subpoenas to third parties, despite receiving a
customer list from Workday on October 7, 2025, and repeatedly acknowledging that such
discovery is central to their opposition to any decertification of the ADEA class. (Id. at 5–6.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel appears not to have reviewed, or even downloaded, entire volumes of
produced documents for several months after receiving them, as evidenced by a belated request
to have the volumes resent. (Dkt. Nos. 234-4 and 234-5.) Plaintiffs sought to compel Workday
to produce certain “customer data and bias testing,” but never submitted the supplemental
briefing requested by Magistrate Judge Beeler. (Dkt. No. 130.) Although Plaintiffs imply that
Judge Beeler informally stayed discovery, Judge Beeler’s order reflects that she merely raised
the possibility of overlap between merits issues and a discrete discovery dispute, and encouraged
the parties to decide how to address that overlap. (Dkt. No. 136.) In response to this invitation,
Plaintiffs ultimately did nothing.1 Finally, with respect to the vast majority of allegedly delayed
or withheld production, Plaintiffs have not sought to compel production despite the imminent
class certification deadline.
In light of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s unenthusiastic pursuit of discovery and the prejudicial
effect of their eleventh-hour Motion, it is a close call whether Plaintiffs have shown good cause
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to modify the case schedule. At the same time,
Workday does not dispute that its planned productions remain ongoing (Dkt. No. 232 ¶ 8), and
that the parties discussed—as early as August 2025—a modification of the class certification
schedule. (Id. ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 232-7). Furthermore, both Plaintiffs and Workday previously
1 On July 10, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that Judge Beeler extend their
supplemental briefing deadlines by two and a half months. (Dkt. No. 155.) Judge Beeler did not
rule on the stipulation, and Plaintiffs never filed the requested supplemental briefing.
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 235 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
represented to the Court that some portion of discovery would likely be contingent on finalizing
the notice plan for the ADEA collective. (Dkt. No. 148 at 12–13.) Because the notice plan was
finalized on December 2, 2025 (Dkt. No. 211), some form of extension to accommodate this
discovery will likely be appropriate.
However, Plaintiffs’ counsel have provided no details about their plan to complete
discovery over the next six months or, indeed, why they believe the appropriate length of
continuance to be six months. They have not adequately explained what has caused the troubling
delays detailed above, or their plan for avoiding such delays in the future. The record raises the
question of whether Plaintiffs’ counsel intend to invest the resources required to complete the
necessary discovery and/or to associate additional counsel who would do so. Plaintiffs’ counsel
are ORDERED to file a reply brief of no more than seven pages addressing these issues by
January 21, 2026. The Court will take the matter under submission upon filing of the reply
brief and issue a written order. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class
Certification is VACATED and will be reset shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 235 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3