Brooks et al v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC et al

1
3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET
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
RONNIE BROOKS, LAURA SEIGEL;
TIFFANY VINSON, PHILIP MCGILL,
ANNIE CASTNER, CHERELLE
BLOUNT, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and ROES 1
through 100, inclusive,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; GREYSTAR
CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET
ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTION TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULING ORDER
[ECF No. 80]
Before the Court is the Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion to Continue Scheduling Order
Regulating 	Putative 	Class 	Discovery 	and 	Setting 	Deadline 	for 	Motion 	for 	Class
Certification (“Joint Motion”). ECF No. 80. The parties propose extending all deadlines by
approximately 4 months. Id. at 6–7. The parties explain that they have been diligently
litigating the case but “Greystar has…faced a number of difficulties gathering certain other
Case 3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET Document 83 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET
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
information and documents.” Id. at 4. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS
the parties’ Joint Motion.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
In determining whether to modify a scheduling order, the Court considers the “good
cause” standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4). Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4), a “schedule may be modified only for good cause and
with the judge’s consent.” Id. (emphasis added); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d
1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the pretrial scheduling order can only be modified upon a
showing of good cause”). Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard “primarily considers the
diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc. (In re W. States
Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig.), 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district
court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence
of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes on the 1983
amendment); see also Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. The focus of the inquiry is upon the
moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. Id; Adrian v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 686
Fed. Appx. 403, 405 (9th Cir. 2017) (applied to joint motions); Neidermeyer v. Caldwell,
718 Fed. Appx. 485, 489 (9th Cir. 2017) (moving party did not show good cause when he
“offered no explanation for his undue delay”).
Further, the required showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed
throughout the entire period of time already allowed. See, e.g., Muniz v. United Parcel
Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Krohne Fund, LP v. Simonsen, 681
Fed. Appx. 635, 638 (9th Cir. 2017); Lyles v. Dollar Rent a Car, Inc., 849 Fed. Appx. 659,
661 (9th Cir. 2021). “If the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764
(9th Cir. 2017) (same). Further, Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires that all counsel “proceed
Case 3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET Document 83 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET
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
with diligence to take all steps necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” CivLR
16.1(b).
II. 	ANALYSIS
The Court’s Scheduling Order was issued on November 19, 2025. ECF No. 67. In
the Joint Motion, the parties describe the discovery efforts that have taken place to date
including, serving and responding to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests
for admission. ECF No. 80 at 3–4. The parties also represent that they have been working
together to resolve discovery disputes and provide supplemental responses to discovery
requests. Id. at 4. In addition, collecting certain information has been difficult for Greystar,
in part because there are over 1,000 properties subject to this lawsuit and Greystar does not
own and/or manage many of those parties. Id. The parties also anticipate that conducting
the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Greystar California will require the testimony of five to
seven different individuals to adequately answer questions on the various topics identified
in Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Id. at 5–6. The parties are currently working
on identifying those specific individuals and scheduling their depositions. Id. at 6.
The Court recognizes the complexity of the discovery in this case due, in part, to the
large number of properties at issue. Additionally, the Court appreciates the parties’ efforts
to work together and resolve discovery disputes without Court intervention. Accordingly,
the 	Court 	GRANTS 	the 	parties’ 	Joint 	Motion. 	However, 	absent 	extraordinary
circumstances, no further continuances shall be granted.
III. 	AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
The Court AMENDS the operative scheduling order (ECF No. 67) as follows:
1. 	No later than July 20, 2026, the parties shall designate their respective experts
for class certification in writing. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts for class
certification shall be no later than August 3, 2026. The written designations shall include
the name, address and telephone number of each expert and a reasonable summary of the
testimony the expert is expected to provide, including any summary of facts and opinions
Case 3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET Document 83 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET
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
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). The list shall also include the normal rates the
expert charges for deposition and trial testimony.
2. 	No later than 	September 4, 2026, each party shall comply with Rule
26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions regarding experts for class certification.
3. 	No later than 	September 18, 2026, the parties shall supplement their
disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence for class certification under Rule
26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e).
4. 	Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery related to
class certification must be completed by October 5, 2026. “Completed” means that all
discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30-36, and discovery subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45,
must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be
completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice, and
response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and
in good faith meet and confer regarding all discovery disputes in compliance with Local
Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without
court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on
any discovery issue, counsel shall follow the procedures governing discovery disputes set
forth in Judge Torres’ Civil Chambers Rules. A failure to comply in this regard will
result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the Court, no
stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the Court.
5. 	Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification by November 20, 2026. In
the 	event 	no 	such 	motion 	is 	filed, 	Plaintiffs 	must 	notify 	the 	Court 	via 	email
(efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov) within three (3) days after the expiration of the class
certification motion deadline.
6. 	The 	parties 	must 	jointly 	contact 	the 	Court 	via 	email
(efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov) within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class
certification to arrange a further case management conference.
Case 3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET Document 83 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET
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
7. 	In the event the parties believe a settlement conference before Magistrate
Judge Valerie E. Torres would be productive prior to the filing of a motion for class
certification, 	the 	parties 	shall 	jointly 	contact 	the 	Court 	via 	email
(efile_Torres@casd.uscourts.gov) to schedule a Settlement Conference.
8. 	The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge
and magistrate judge.
9. 	Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion
shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. No
reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge.
Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents
and a table of authorities cited.
10. 	Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this case
hereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2026 	_____________________________
Honorable Valerie E. Torres
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET Document 83 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5