Reinhart v. Dodge Data and Analytics LLC et al

1
3:25-cv-01497-DMS-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
MELISSA REINHART,
Plaintiff,
v.
DODGE DATA AND ANALYTICS,
LLC; DOES 1 to 15, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-01497-DMS-VET
ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTION TO CONTINUE
MANDATORY SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE AND FACT
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
[ECF No. 15]
Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the April 15, 2026
Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) and the Fact Discovery Deadline (“Joint
Motion”). ECF No. 15. The parties propose extending the MSC and fact discovery deadline
by 60 days. Id. at 2. The parties explain that they “have been actively engaged in written
discovery” but there have been some delays that have pushed out the scheduling of
depositions. Id. at 2. 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.
Case 3:25-cv-01497-DMS-VET Document 16 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-01497-DMS-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
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
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 August 21, 2025. ECF No. 11. In the
Joint Motion, the parties describe some of the discovery efforts that have taken place to
date including engaging in “written discovery and in meet-and-confer efforts aimed at
resolving deficiencies in the parties’ discovery responses.” ECF No. 15 at 2. The Court
Case 3:25-cv-01497-DMS-VET Document 16 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-01497-DMS-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
appreciates the parties’ efforts to work together but emphasizes the importance of
preventing any unnecessary delay. The main reason for the requested continuance seems
to be the depositions of Defendant’s corporate representatives who all have scheduling
constraints. The Court understands it can be difficult to schedule depositions but
encourages the parties to work together to get all depositions scheduled as soon as possible.
The parties are only requesting a continuance of the MSC and the fact discovery deadline,
so no other case management deadlines will be affected. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
the Joint Motion and ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court hereby VACATES the MSC set for April 15, 2026 and related
deadlines.
2. The fact discovery deadline is CONTINUED from March 23, 2026 to May 22,
2026.
3. The Court SETS a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) by Zoom video
conferencing for July 30, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie E.
Torres. By no later than July 23, 2026, each party must lodge a Confidential
Settlement Brief by email to efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov.
4. All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 11), including without
limitation expert discovery deadlines, remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026 	_____________________________
Honorable Valerie E. Torres
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01497-DMS-VET Document 16 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3