Dang v. Pontier et al

1
19-cv-1519-LL-DDL
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
JOSEPH DANG,
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,
v.
DAVID PONTIER,
Defendant/Counterplaintiff.
Case No.: 19-cv-1519-LL-DDL
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REOPEN DISCOVERY
[Dkt. No. 285]
Before the Court is Defendant/Counterplaintiff David Pontier’s Motion to Reopen
Discovery. Dkt. No. 285. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Joseph Dang opposes the motion.
Dkt. No. 297. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Dang, who was formerly Mr. Pontier’s attorney, initially brought this matter
as an interpleader action to resolve conflicting claims over funds obtained through a
personal injury settlement. Dkt. No. 1. The only remaining causes of action are two
counterclaims brought by Mr. Pontier against Mr. Dang for medical fraud and breach of
contract.
Pursuant to the Court’s June 4, 2020 Scheduling Order, fact discovery ended on
November 3, 2020. Dkt. No 72 at 1. On January 26, 2026, the Court issued a Scheduling
Case 3:19-cv-01519-LL-DDL Document 308 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
19-cv-1519-LL-DDL
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
Order setting the case towards a pretrial conference. Dkt. No. 267. Mr. Pontier filed his
motion on February 11, 2026. Dkt. No. 285.
Mr. Pontier argues that good cause to reopen discovery exists because “newly
discovered evidence reveals that Mr. Dang concealed a material familial relationship with
JP Morgan Chase Bank Manager Vuong Vo,” who allegedly accepted two insurance
checks from Mr. Dang without Mr. Pontier’s signature. Dkt. No. 285 at 2. Additionally,
Mr. Pontier states that discovery closed before Chase Bank complied with his subpoena.
Id. Finally, Mr. Pontier questions the authenticity of documents produced by Mr. Dang.
Id. He seeks to reopen discovery to enforce a previously served subpoena on Chase Bank,
to obtain the birth records of Vuong Vo and Mr. Dang’s wife, and to authenticate the
documents produced by Mr. Dang. Id. at 8.
Mr. Dang objects to reopening discovery. Dkt. No. 297. First, Mr. Dang denies
the existence of any familial relationship with Vuong Vo. Id. at 2. Additionally, Mr.
Dang points out that Mr. Pontier has asserted this theory since at least November 23,
2025, when he discussed it at length in a prior motion, and thereby has failed to exercise
the diligence required by Rule 16(b)(4). Id. at 3, see Dkt. No. 250 at 2.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Scheduling orders may be modified only “for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily
considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to modify
a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4) to reopen discovery, a court must consider the
following factors: 1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3)
whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was
diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the
foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for
discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant
Case 3:19-cv-01519-LL-DDL Document 308 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
19-cv-1519-LL-DDL
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
evidence. City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017).
III.
DISCUSSION
The Court finds that Mr. Pontier has not established good cause to reopen
discovery. As an initial matter, Mr. Pontier has not been diligent in seeking the requested
relief. Fact discovery closed more than five years ago. As to the subpoena on Chase
Bank, Mr. Pontier served it on June 2, 2020, and Chase Bank responded with their
objections on June 5, 2020. Dkt. No. 285-1 at 2. Thereafter, Mr. Pontier did not seek to
enforce the subpoena, despite having five months to do so before the close of fact
discovery. To seek relief now, more than five years after receiving Chase Bank’s
objections, clearly fails to demonstrate the diligence required by Rule 16(b)(4). Similarly,
Mr. Pontier has failed to act diligently to complete discovery pertaining to his other two
requested subjects for reopened discovery, Mr. Dang’s relationship to Vuong Vo and the
authenticity of documents produced by Mr. Dang. Both requests arise from issues that
Mr. Pontier was aware of during the discovery period in 2020, and he provides no
justification for why he waited so long to seek this relief.
Additionally, the six-factor inquiry set forth above weighs against reopening
discovery. First, the case is nearing trial. The parties have exchanged pretrial disclosures
and are on the path to a pretrial conference. Second, Mr. Dang opposes the request. As
to the third factor, Mr. Dang does not address whether reopening discovery will result in
prejudice. However, the Court finds that Mr. Dang would suffer at least some prejudice
from the delay that would be caused by reopening discovery. Fourth, Mr. Pontier was not
diligent in completing discovery within the original time period, as described above.
Fifth, Mr. Pontier does not identify any unforeseeable event that justifies reopening
discovery. Finally, while there may be a chance that Mr. Pontier’s requested discovery
could lead to relevant evidence, that likelihood is not significant enough to outweigh the
other five factors, which all support not reopening discovery.
/ / /
Case 3:19-cv-01519-LL-DDL Document 308 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
19-cv-1519-LL-DDL
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
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated about, Defendant/Counterplaintiff Pontier’s motion to
reopen discovery [Dkt. No. 285] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2026
Hon. David D. Leshner
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:19-cv-01519-LL-DDL Document 308 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4