BJ Foster, et al. v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a third joint motion by the parties to extend all remaining pretrial dates and deadlines by six months. The court granted the motion in part, extending the fact discovery deadline by four months from the date of the order and bifurcating the fact and expert discovery deadlines.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The Third Joint Motion to Extend Dates of Factual and Expert Discovery and All Related Dates is granted in part.“Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth further below.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for modifying a scheduling order. The court found that the parties' stated reasons (counsel's need to become familiar with the case and a state court trial) did not demonstrate the necessary diligence for a six-month extension, but that a four-month extension was sufficient based on the court's familiarity with the case status. This is a discretionary determination supported by the record recited in the order. |
The fact discovery deadline is extended by four months from the date of the order (February 24, 2026), and fact and expert discovery deadlines are bifurcated.“the Court finds a four-month extension of the fact discovery deadline from today’s date, rather than from the current discovery deadline, will provide a sufficient amount of time for the parties to complete fact discovery in this matter. Additionally, to ensure the orderly and efficient completion of discovery in this case, the Court will bifurcate the fact and expert discovery deadlines.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to set a specific new deadline that it deemed sufficient for the completion of discovery, distinguishing it from the requested six-month extension. The decision to bifurcate the deadlines is a procedural management tool within the court's authority to ensure efficient case progression. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (good cause under Rule 16(b)) and applies it to the specific facts presented by the parties. It distinguishes between the requested six-month extension and the granted four-month extension based on the parties' lack of demonstrated diligence for the longer period. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a scheduling order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BJ FOSTER, et al., Case No.: 24-cv-1917-LL-SBC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. THIRD JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DATES OF FACTUAL 14 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AND EXPERT DISCOVERY AND CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, et 15 ALL RELATED DATES al., [DKT. NO. 44] 16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court is a Third Joint Motion to Extend Dates of Factual and 19 Expert Discovery and All Related Dates, in which the parties seek to extend all remaining 20 pretrial dates and deadlines by six months. (Dkt. No. 44.) This matter came on for hearing 21 on February 24, 2026. (Dkt. No. 50.) As discussed on the record, while the Court finds 22 sufficient cause to extend the scheduling order dates, the parties have failed to demonstrate 23 good cause for a six-month continuance of all current dates and deadlines. Accordingly, 24 the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED IN PART as set forth further below. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 The Court issued the original scheduling order in this action on December 23, 2024. 3 (Dkt. No. 13.) The schedule required all fact and expert discovery to be completed by 4 September 19, 2025,1 and included a Pretrial Conference date of February 19, 2026. (Id.) 5 On July 10, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to continue all scheduling order 6 dates by six months. (Dkt. No. 32.) On July 16, 2025, the Court issued an order granting 7 the joint motion in part. (Dkt. No. 34.) The Court explained, “After considering the parties’ 8 motion and conferring with the chambers of the Honorable Linda Lopez, the Court finds 9 that the parties have not provided sufficient cause for a six-month continuance of dates; 10 rather, good cause exists for only a ninety-day continuance.” (Id.) The amended scheduling 11 order included a fact and expert discovery deadline of December 18, 2025, and a Pretrial 12 Conference date of May 21, 2026. (Id.) 13 On October 10, 2025, the parties filed a second joint motion to continue all 14 scheduling order dates, this time by fifteen weeks. (Dkt. No. 38.) The Court granted the 15 joint motion and issued a second amended scheduling order on October 15, 2025. (Dkt. 16 No. 42.) The revised schedule moved the fact and expert discovery deadline to April 2, 17 2026, and the Pretrial Conference to September 3, 2026. (Id.) 18 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 19 Parties seeking to modify the scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) must 20 demonstrate good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for 21 good cause and with the judge’s consent.”); see also Dkt. No. 13 at 6 (“The dates and times 22 set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown.”); Wietfelt v. Comdata, 23 Case No.: 21-CV-1684-CAB(WVG), 2022 WL 1493256, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2022) 24 (applying good cause standard to joint motion to extend fact discovery deadline). The good 25 cause standard under Rule 16(b) “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 26 27 1 The Court provided a unitary fact and expert discovery cutoff in accordance with the 28 1 amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving part[ies’] reasons for seeking modification.” 3 Id. 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 The parties have faced a number of challenges that have hampered their ability to 6 move the case forward, as described in further detail in the parties’ three joint motions to 7 continue scheduling order dates. (See Dkt. Nos. 32, 38, 44.) Presently, the parties seek a 8 six-month extension of all remaining deadlines. (Dkt. No. 44.) One basis for the request is 9 that Plaintiffs’ counsel Suzy Moore’s four supervising attorneys “require additional time 10 to become familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the case,” and because 11 they began a 6-8 week trial in state court on January 15, 2026, Moore “has not been able 12 to confirm with her new firm the trial calendaring schedule in order to reset for dates 13 certain.” (Id. at 5.) Additionally, the California State University Defendants expect a 14 “second-level review of . . . approximately 3,600” documents to take several more weeks. 15 (Id. at 6.) The first proffered reason for the requested six-month continuance does not 16 demonstrate diligence, and the second proffered reason does not provide a sufficient basis 17 for a continuance of six months. 18 Based on the Court’s familiarity with this matter, including an in-depth discussion 19 of the status of discovery during the Status Conference held on January 20, 2026, (see Dkt. 20 No. 43), as well as during the hearing held on February 24, 2026, (Dkt. No. 50), the Court 21 finds a four-month extension of the fact discovery deadline from today’s date, rather than 22 from the current discovery deadline, will provide a sufficient amount of time for the parties 23 to complete fact discovery in this matter. Additionally, to ensure the orderly and efficient 24 completion of discovery in this case, the Court will bifurcate the fact and expert discovery 25 deadlines. 26 IV. THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 27 In accordance with the above, the Court hereby issues the following Third Amended 28 Scheduling Order: Deadline/Date Status Conference Zoom) S~«*SRIDORB BONE g ||| Mandatory Settlement Conference | 5/27/2026 11/10/2026 ee ee 10 Memoranda of Contentions of Fact | 8/6/2026 1/21/2027 12 ||| Meeting of counsel pursuant to 8/6/2026 1/21/2027 Local Rule 16.1(£)(4) (see 13 requirements set forth in original 14 ||| scheduling order) 15 ||| Proposed pretrial order due from 8/13/2026 1/28/2027 All other guidelines, deadlines, and requirements remain as previously set. (See DKt.
50 Nos. 13, 34, 42.) Absent significant diligence, efficiency, and progress with discovery, no further extensions will be granted. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
33 Dated: February 24, 2026 24 Hy □□ □□□ 25 Hon. SteveB.Chu United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 ? Counsel shall participate in the conference by using the same Zoom meeting information used for the January 20, 2026 status conference in this matter.