Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONNIE TU, Case No.: 24cv1221-WQH (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT EXPERIAN 13 v. INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.’S MOTION TO EXTEND CERTAIN CASE 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, DEADLINES [ECF NO. 114] INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s 21 (“Experian”) Opposed Motion to Extend Certain Case Deadlines. (ECF No. 114.) After 22 the Honorable District Judge William Q. Hayes issued an order permitting Plaintiff to file 23 a supplemental response to Experian’s renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration, Experian 24 requested the Court resume briefing as to its Motion to Stay Discovery. (Id. at 2.) The 25 Court granted that motion and entered a briefing schedule allowing Plaintiff to respond 26 by February 11, 2026, and Defendant to reply by February 18, 2026. (ECF No. 113.) 27 Now, Experian asks the Court to extend several discovery deadlines because it argues 2 deprive Experian of ‘the advantage of arbitration.’” (ECF No. 114 at 3 (quoting Winig v. 3 Cingular Wireless, 2006 WL 3201047, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2006) (internal citations 4 omitted).) Experian states its Motion to Compel Arbitration “would be constructively 5 denied if discovery proceeds in this forum through completion of fact discovery.” (Id.) 6 Lastly, Experian contends moving certain discovery deadlines “will provide additional 7 time for the Parties to brief, and the Court to decide, Experian’s Motion to Stay 8 Discovery and its Arbitration Motion without impacting trial deadlines.” (Id.) Counsel 9 for Experian says he telephonically met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel on 10 February 5, 2026, and Plaintiff opposes the requested relief. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not 11 file a response. (See generally Docket.) 12 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 13 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause standard “primarily considers the 14 diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court may modify the 15 pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 16 seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 17 Cir. 1992). This case has an extensive procedural history, which is important to consider 18 in reviewing the instant Motion. Plaintiff filed her Complaint more than eighteen 19 months ago on July 17, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) The Court originally scheduled the Early 20 Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to occur in 21 September 2024. (See ECF No. 21.) However, after Experian filed its first Motion to 22 Compel Arbitration, the Court vacated these conferences pending the resolution of that 23 motion. (See ECF Nos. 24 & 27.) From November 2024 to April 2025, the Court held 24 several telephonic discovery conferences with counsel for the parties, during which the 25 Court consistently limited discovery before the ENE and while the Arbitration Motion 26 was still pending. (See ECF Nos. 31, 46, 57.) On April 16, 2025, Judge Hayes issued an 27 Order denying without prejudice Experian’s Motion to Compel Arbitration [ECF No. 54], 1 After an unsuccessful ENE, the Court held the CMC and issued the Scheduling 2 || Order formally opening discovery on July 1, 2025. (ECF Nos. 64-65.) More than seven 3 months have passed since then, and the parties appear to have made minimal progress 4 ||toward completing discovery. While the Court appreciates that Experian filed a 5 renewed Arbitration Motion [ECF No. 80] on September 25, 2025, and this motion is still 6 || pending before the District Court, it is the Court’s responsibility to ensure the “just, 7 ||speedy and inexpensive determination” of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. In a January 8 || 12, 2026, Order, Judge Hayes noted “Plaintiff’s position that she cannot adequately 9 || respond to the pending Motion to Compel Arbitration absent additional discovery.” 10 || (ECF No. 107 at 2.) Judge Hayes permitted Plaintiff to file a supplement to her 11 || Opposition to the Arbitration Motion no later than March 23, 2026—a week after the 12 || current cutoff of fact discovery. (Id.) Given Judge Hayes’ recent directive, Plaintiff's 13 || opposition to the instant Motion, and the length of time that has already elapsed in this 14 || case, the Court finds there is not sufficient good cause to modify the Scheduling Order. 15 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion [ECF No. 114]. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: February 9, 2026 = _ 2 FF 19 Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28