Rodriguez et al v. FCA US, LLC et al

1
3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG
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
VINCENT RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FCA US, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION
TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
DEADLINES
[ECF No. 18]
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to modify the scheduling order. ECF
No. 18. The parties seek a 90-day continuance of fact and expert discovery deadlines, as
well as all other remaining case management deadlines. Id. at 3–4.
Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order 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 ECF No. 15 at 7 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates
[] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2
(stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the
request”).
Case 3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 03/07/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG
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
Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v.
Hansen, No. 2:11-cv-492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012).
“Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural
and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir.
2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the
scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. ECF No. 15 at 7; Johnson, 975
F.2d at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking
modification. … If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). Therefore, “a
party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth
by the court.” Doe v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-217-JLS-AHG, 2025
WL 2881574, at *1–*2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) (quoting Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No.
16-cv-1103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018)).
Fact discovery closed in this matter on March 6, 2026. ECF No. 15 at 1. The parties
represent to the Court that they have exchanged written discovery, but have not yet
completed all of their depositions. ECF No. 18 at 2–3. The parties intend to depose both
Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness. Id. The parties also represent that they
have not completed the vehicle inspection in this matter. Id. at 3. As such, the parties seek
a 90-day extension of the fact discovery cutoff, expert deadlines, and all other deadlines
set forth in the scheduling order. Id. at 3–4.
Though the Court appreciates that the parties have been working together, the Court
expresses its concern regarding the parties’ delay in filing the instant motion. By filing the
motion on the March 6, 2026, fact discovery deadline, the parties failed to follow the
Court’s Chambers Rules. See Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that “[a]ll requests for continuances
must be made by a joint motion no less than seven calendar days before the affected
date”) (emphasis added). The parties do not address, or acknowledge, their substantial
delay.
/ /
Case 3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 03/07/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG
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
The parties also do not provide adequate explanation to support their requested
90-day continuance, i.e., why they need three more months to complete three depositions
and a vehicle inspection. Though the parties adequately explain the reason for the
scheduling delays regarding Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, the parties do not proffer
any reason for the delay in taking the Plaintiffs’ depositions. And other than generally
referring to “numerous scheduling conflicts,” the parties likewise do not provide adequate
reasoning for the delay in conducting the vehicle inspection. Additionally, the parties do
not specify whether the remaining depositions at issue were noticed and then needed to be
continued, or if they have not yet been noticed, which would have informed the Court’s
diligence analysis. As such, the Court cannot conclude that such a large, 90-day extension
is necessary in this instance.
Further, the parties do not explain in sufficient detail what they have done in the five
months that have passed since fact discovery opened, other than that they generally “have
propounded and responded to written discovery,”—which could be one set of a few
interrogatories from one side, taking minimal time and effort, or multiple sets of
interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission from both sides, taking
substantial time and effort—and do not explain whether any other depositions have been
taken. See ECF No. 12 at 1 (the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, which opens fact discovery,
held by October 3, 2025). The Court also notes that the parties failed to provide an adequate
declaration from counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2
(requiring that the joint motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking
the continuance that describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines,
and the specific reasons why the deadlines cannot be met”) (emphasis added). The
declaration provided by counsel is identical to the motion submitted, and does not provide
any of the information needed for the Court to determine whether the parties were actively
attempting to comply with the Court’s deadlines. Compare ECF No. 18-1 with ECF No. 18.
Aside from being required, the declaration would have been helpful to the Court in
resolving the many omissions noted above.
Case 3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 03/07/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG
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
Though the Court finds that the delay in filing the instant motion and the factual
omissions noted above belie a finding of diligence, in the interest of cases being decided
on their merits, the Court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART the joint motion.
ECF No. 18. The Court orders as follows:
1. March 6, 2026 remains the deadline for completion of fact discovery, except
for the following:
a. The depositions of Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness must
be taken on or before April 20, 2026.
b. The vehicle inspection must take place no later than May 18, 2026.
2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by June 8, 2026.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), the parties must identify any person who may be
used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid.
This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal
experts shall be by June 29, 2026. The written designations shall include the name, address
and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert
is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for
deposition and trial testimony.
3. By June 8, 2026, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in
Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure
requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert
testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of
expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to
make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use
evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition,
the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).
4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal
evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by June 29, 2026.
/ /
Case 3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 03/07/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG
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
5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by July 20, 2026. The
parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact
discovery. See ECF No. 15 at ¶ 2. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery
order of the court may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including
a prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence.
6. All other pretrial motions, including those addressing Daubert issues related
to dispositive motions must be filed by August 11, 2026. Pursuant to Honorable
Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, all motions for summary judgment
shall be accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts. Any opposition
to a summary judgment motion shall include a response to the separate statement of
undisputed material facts. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date
from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. Motion papers MUST be filed
and served the same day of obtaining a motion hearing date from chambers. A briefing
schedule will be issued once a motion has been filed. The period of time between the date
you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary. Please plan accordingly. Failure
to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard.
7. All other dates, deadlines, and procedures set forth in the Court’s Scheduling
Order (ECF No. 15) remain in place.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG Document 19 Filed 03/07/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5