Ronnie Brooks, Laura Seigel; Tiffany Vinson, Philip McGill, Annie Castner, Cherelle Blount, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Greystar
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Valerie E. Torres (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' renewed joint motion to continue the scheduling order regulating putative class discovery and setting a deadline for the motion for class certification. The court granted the motion, extending the deadlines by approximately four months, and issued an amended scheduling order with specific dates for expert disclosures, discovery completion, and the class certification motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant the Parties' Renewed Joint Motion to Continue Scheduling Order“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), focusing on the diligence of the parties. The order recites that the parties have been diligently litigating, working together to resolve disputes, and facing specific difficulties due to the complexity of the case (over 1,000 properties). This satisfies the requirement that the schedule could not reasonably be met despite diligence. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
Amend the operative scheduling order to set new deadlines for expert designations, disclosures, discovery completion, and the class certification motion“The Court AMENDS the operative scheduling order (ECF No. 67) as follows: ... 5. Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification by November 20, 2026.” | agree with court The court has broad discretion to set and modify scheduling orders. The specific dates provided are consistent with the four-month extension requested and the need to complete complex class discovery. The inclusion of a warning that no further continuances will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances is appropriate to ensure case management. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (good cause under Rule 16(b)(4)) and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Zivkovic, Learjet, Johnson) to support the proposition that diligence is the primary factor. The court applies this standard to the specific facts recited in the joint motion (diligent litigation, cooperation, and complexity of discovery involving 1,000+ properties). The reasoning is complete and directly answers the motion with the right authorities. There are no significant gaps or questionable results.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE BROOKS, LAURA SEIGEL; Case No.: 3:23-cv-01729-LL-VET TIFFANY VINSON, PHILIP MCGILL, 12 ANNIE CASTNER, CHERELLE ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 BLOUNT, individually, and on behalf of MOTION TO CONTINUE all others similarly situated; and ROES 1 SCHEDULING ORDER 14 through 100, inclusive, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. [ECF No. 80] 17 GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE 18 PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; GREYSTAR 19 CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware 20 Corporation; et al., 21 Defendants. 22 23 Before the Court is the Parties’ Renewed Joint Motion to Continue Scheduling Order 24 Regulating Putative Class Discovery and Setting Deadline for Motion for Class 25 Certification (“Joint Motion”). ECF No. 80. The parties propose extending all deadlines by 26 approximately 4 months. Id. at 6–7. The parties explain that they have been diligently 27 litigating the case but “Greystar has…faced a number of difficulties gathering certain other 28 1 information and documents.” Id. at 4. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS 2 the parties’ Joint Motion. 3 I. LEGAL STANDARD 4 In determining whether to modify a scheduling order, the Court considers the “good 5 cause” standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 16(b)(4). Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4), a “schedule may be modified only for good cause and 7 with the judge’s consent.” Id. (emphasis added); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 8 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the pretrial scheduling order can only be modified upon a 9 showing of good cause”). Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard “primarily considers the 10 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc. (In re W. States 11 Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig.), 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district 12 court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence 13 of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 14 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes on the 1983 15 amendment); see also Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. The focus of the inquiry is upon the 16 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. Id; Adrian v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 686 17 Fed. Appx. 403, 405 (9th Cir. 2017) (applied to joint motions); Neidermeyer v. Caldwell, 18 718 Fed. Appx. 485, 489 (9th Cir. 2017) (moving party did not show good cause when he 19 “offered no explanation for his undue delay”). 20 Further, the required showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed 21 throughout the entire period of time already allowed. See, e.g., Muniz v. United Parcel 22 Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Krohne Fund, LP v. Simonsen, 681 23 Fed. Appx. 635, 638 (9th Cir. 2017); Lyles v. Dollar Rent a Car, Inc., 849 Fed. Appx. 659, 24 661 (9th Cir. 2021). “If the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 25 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764 26 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). Further, Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires that all counsel “proceed 27 28 1 with diligence to take all steps necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” CivLR 2 16.1(b). 3 II. ANALYSIS 4 The Court’s Scheduling Order was issued on November 19, 2025. ECF No. 67. In 5 the Joint Motion, the parties describe the discovery efforts that have taken place to date 6 including, serving and responding to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests 7 for admission. ECF No. 80 at 3–4. The parties also represent that they have been working 8 together to resolve discovery disputes and provide supplemental responses to discovery 9 requests. Id. at 4. In addition, collecting certain information has been difficult for Greystar, 10 in part because there are over 1,000 properties subject to this lawsuit and Greystar does not 11 own and/or manage many of those parties. Id. The parties also anticipate that conducting 12 the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Greystar California will require the testimony of five to 13 seven different individuals to adequately answer questions on the various topics identified 14 in Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Id. at 5–6. The parties are currently working 15 on identifying those specific individuals and scheduling their depositions. Id. at 6. 16 The Court recognizes the complexity of the discovery in this case due, in part, to the 17 large number of properties at issue. Additionally, the Court appreciates the parties’ efforts 18 to work together and resolve discovery disputes without Court intervention. Accordingly, 19 the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion. However, absent extraordinary 20 circumstances, no further continuances shall be granted. 21 III. AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 22 The Court AMENDS the operative scheduling order (ECF No. 67) as follows: 23 1. No later than July 20, 2026, the parties shall designate their respective experts 24 for class certification in writing. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts for class 25 certification shall be no later than August 3, 2026. The written designations shall include 26 the name, address and telephone number of each expert and a reasonable summary of the 27 testimony the expert is expected to provide, including any summary of facts and opinions 28 1 required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). The list shall also include the normal rates the 2 expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 3 2. No later than September 4, 2026, each party shall comply with Rule 4 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions regarding experts for class certification. 5 3. No later than September 18, 2026, the parties shall supplement their 6 disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence for class certification under Rule 7 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e). 8 4. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery related to 9 class certification must be completed by October 5, 2026. “Completed” means that all 10 discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30-36, and discovery subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, 11 must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be 12 completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice, and 13 response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and 14 in good faith meet and confer regarding all discovery disputes in compliance with Local 15 Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without 16 court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on 17 any discovery issue, counsel shall follow the procedures governing discovery disputes set 18 forth in Judge Torres’ Civil Chambers Rules. A failure to comply in this regard will 19 result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the Court, no 20 stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the Court. 21 5. Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification by November 20, 2026. In 22 the event no such motion is filed, Plaintiffs must notify the Court via email 23 (efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov) within three (3) days after the expiration of the class 24 certification motion deadline. 25 6. The parties must jointly contact the Court via email 26 (efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov) within three (3) days of a ruling on the motion for class 27 certification to arrange a further case management conference. 28 1 7. In the event the parties believe a settlement conference before Magistrate 2 ||Judge Valerie E. Torres would be productive prior to the filing of a motion for class 3 ||certification, the parties shall jointly contact the Court email 4 || (efile_Torres@casd.uscourts.gov) to schedule a Settlement Conference. 5 8. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 6 ||and magistrate judge. 7 9. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 8 || shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. No 9 ||reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. 10 || Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents 11 a table of authorities cited. 12 10. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this case 13 || hereafter. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. [r= SK 15 Dated: March 25, 2026 16 Honorable Valerie E. Torres United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28