Foster et al v. Board of Trustees of the California State University et al

1
24-cv-1917-LL-SBC
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BJ FOSTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-1917-LL-SBC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
THIRD JOINT MOTION TO
EXTEND DATES OF FACTUAL
AND EXPERT DISCOVERY AND
ALL RELATED DATES
[DKT. NO. 44]
Presently before the Court is a Third Joint Motion to Extend Dates of Factual and
Expert Discovery and All Related Dates, in which the parties seek to extend all remaining
pretrial dates and deadlines by six months. (Dkt. No. 44.) This matter came on for hearing
on February 24, 2026. (Dkt. No. 50.) As discussed on the record, while the Court finds
sufficient cause to extend the scheduling order dates, the parties have failed to demonstrate
good cause for a six-month continuance of all current dates and deadlines. Accordingly,
the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth further below.
///
///
///
Case 3:24-cv-01917-LL-SBC Document 51 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
24-cv-1917-LL-SBC
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
I. BACKGROUND
The Court issued the original scheduling order in this action on December 23, 2024.
(Dkt. No. 13.) The schedule required all fact and expert discovery to be completed by
September 19, 2025,1 and included a Pretrial Conference date of February 19, 2026. (Id.)
On July 10, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to continue all scheduling order
dates by six months. (Dkt. No. 32.) On July 16, 2025, the Court issued an order granting
the joint motion in part. (Dkt. No. 34.) The Court explained, “After considering the parties’
motion and conferring with the chambers of the Honorable Linda Lopez, the Court finds
that the parties have not provided sufficient cause for a six-month continuance of dates;
rather, good cause exists for only a ninety-day continuance.” (Id.) The amended scheduling
order included a fact and expert discovery deadline of December 18, 2025, and a Pretrial
Conference date of May 21, 2026. (Id.)
On October 10, 2025, the parties filed a second joint motion to continue all
scheduling order dates, this time by fifteen weeks. (Dkt. No. 38.) The Court granted the
joint motion and issued a second amended scheduling order on October 15, 2025. (Dkt.
No. 42.) The revised schedule moved the fact and expert discovery deadline to April 2,
2026, and the Pretrial Conference to September 3, 2026. (Id.)
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) must
demonstrate good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge’s consent.”); see also Dkt. No. 13 at 6 (“The dates and times
set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown.”); Wietfelt v. Comdata,
Case No.: 21-CV-1684-CAB(WVG), 2022 WL 1493256, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2022)
(applying good cause standard to joint motion to extend fact discovery deadline). The good
cause standard under Rule 16(b) “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the
1 The Court provided a unitary fact and expert discovery cutoff in accordance with the
parties’ request as set forth in their joint discovery plan dated December 6, 2024.
Case 3:24-cv-01917-LL-SBC Document 51 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
24-cv-1917-LL-SBC
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
amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).
“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving part[ies’] reasons for seeking modification.”
Id.
III. DISCUSSION
The parties have faced a number of challenges that have hampered their ability to
move the case forward, as described in further detail in the parties’ three joint motions to
continue scheduling order dates. (See Dkt. Nos. 32, 38, 44.) Presently, the parties seek a
six-month extension of all remaining deadlines. (Dkt. No. 44.) One basis for the request is
that Plaintiffs’ counsel Suzy Moore’s four supervising attorneys “require additional time
to become familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the case,” and because
they began a 6-8 week trial in state court on January 15, 2026, Moore “has not been able
to confirm with her new firm the trial calendaring schedule in order to reset for dates
certain.” (Id. at 5.) Additionally, the California State University Defendants expect a
“second-level review of . . . approximately 3,600” documents to take several more weeks.
(Id. at 6.) The first proffered reason for the requested six-month continuance does not
demonstrate diligence, and the second proffered reason does not provide a sufficient basis
for a continuance of six months.
Based on the Court’s familiarity with this matter, including an in-depth discussion
of the status of discovery during the Status Conference held on January 20, 2026, (see Dkt.
No. 43), as well as during the hearing held on February 24, 2026, (Dkt. No. 50), the Court
finds a four-month extension of the fact discovery deadline from today’s date, rather than
from the current discovery deadline, will provide a sufficient amount of time for the parties
to complete fact discovery in this matter. Additionally, to ensure the orderly and efficient
completion of discovery in this case, the Court will bifurcate the fact and expert discovery
deadlines.
IV. THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
In accordance with the above, the Court hereby issues the following Third Amended
Scheduling Order:
Case 3:24-cv-01917-LL-SBC Document 51 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
24-cv-1917-LL-SBC
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
Deadline/Event Current
Deadline/Date
Revised Deadline/Date
Status Conference (Zoom) 5/26/2026 9:30 AM2
Fact discovery deadline 4/2/2026 6/26/2026
Expert witness disclosures 2/5/2026 7/24/2026
Rebuttal expert disclosures 3/5/2026 8/21/2026
Expert discovery deadline 4/2/2026 9/18/2026
Pretrial motion filing deadline 4/30/2026 10/16/2026
Mandatory Settlement Conference 6/3/2026 10:00 AM 11/18/2026 10:00 AM
Mandatory Settlement Conference
due
5/27/2026 11/10/2026
Pretrial disclosures 7/30/2026 1/14/2027
Memoranda of Contentions of Fact
and Law (if required)
8/6/2026 1/21/2027
Meeting of counsel pursuant to
Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) (see
requirements set forth in original
scheduling order)
8/6/2026 1/21/2027
Proposed pretrial order due from
counsel
8/13/2026 1/28/2027
Proposed pretrial order lodging 8/20/2026 2/4/2027
Final Pretrial Conference 9/3/2026 10:00 AM 2/18/2027 10:00 AM
All other guidelines, deadlines, and requirements remain as previously set. (See Dkt.
Nos. 13, 34, 42.) Absent significant diligence, efficiency, and progress with discovery, no
further extensions will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2026
2 Counsel shall participate in the conference by using the same Zoom meeting information
used for the January 20, 2026 status conference in this matter.
Case 3:24-cv-01917-LL-SBC Document 51 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4