gno.law

District Court, S.D. California · 3:25-cv-01497 · 2026-05-01 · Unknown

Melissa Reinhart v. Dodge Data and Analytics LLC

Proceeding
district
Area
civil
Panel
Valerie E. Torres (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T20:32Z · confidence high

The court considered a joint motion to continue expert discovery deadlines and a joint oral motion to continue the fact discovery deadline. The court granted both motions and issued an amended scheduling order setting new deadlines for discovery, expert disclosures, and pretrial proceedings.

What the court decidedThe model
Granting the Joint Motion to Continue Expert Discovery Deadlines
“the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Expert Discovery Deadlines”
agree with court
The order states that 'good cause appearing' was the basis for the decision. In the context of a joint motion to modify a scheduling order, the standard is typically 'good cause' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The court's finding of good cause is sufficient to support the ruling.
Granting the Joint Oral Motion to Continue the Fact Discovery Cutoff
“GRANTS the parties’ Joint Oral Motion to Continue the Fact Discovery Cutoff”
agree with court
Similar to the expert discovery motion, the court found 'good cause appearing' to grant the continuation of the fact discovery deadline. This is the appropriate standard for modifying scheduling deadlines by joint motion.
Issuing an Amended Scheduling Order
“and ISSUES the following Amended Scheduling Order”
agree with court
The issuance of the amended scheduling order is the procedural mechanism to effectuate the granted continuations. The specific dates set are consistent with the requested continuations.

The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling granting a joint motion to continue discovery deadlines. The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard implicit in Rule 16(b)(4) for modifying scheduling orders. The citations provided are relevant to the specific requirements of the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) outlined in the order, specifically regarding the level of settlement authority required for attendees. The reasoning is sufficient for the type of motion presented.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MELISSA REINHART, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01497-DMS-VET 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT v. MOTION TO CONTINUE EXPERT 13 DISCOVERY DEADLINES AND DODGE DATA AND ANALYTICS 14 MOTION TO CONTINUE FACT LLC, DISCOVERY DEADLINES, AND 15 Defendant. ISSUING AMENDED SCHEDULING 16 ORDER 17 [ECF Nos. 18, 21] 18 19 On April 20, 2026, the parties filed their Joint Motion to Continue Expert Discovery 20 Deadlines (“Joint Motion”). ECF No. 18. On May 1, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the 21 Joint Motion. At the hearing, the parties jointly moved to continue the fact discovery 22 deadline by an additional month to accommodate currently outstanding depositions. ECF 23 No. 21. 24 After consulting with the attorneys of record for the parties and being advised of the 25 status of the case, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion 26 to Continue Expert Discovery Deadlines, GRANTS the parties’ Joint Oral Motion to 27 Continue the Fact Discovery Cutoff, and ISSUES the following Amended Scheduling 28 Order: 1 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by June 22, 2026. 2 “Completed” means that all discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30-36, and discovery 3 subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance 4 of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the 5 times for service, notice, and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer regarding all discovery disputes 7 in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to 8 resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the 9 parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel shall follow the procedures 10 governing discovery disputes set forth in Judge Torres’ Civil Chambers Rules. A failure 11 to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 12 order of the Court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 13 recognized by the Court. 14 2. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) shall be conducted by Zoom 15 video conferencing on July 30, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. 16 Torres.1 17 a. The following are mandatory procedures to be followed in preparation for 18 the MSC. Absent express permission from this Court, counsel must timely comply with 19 the dates and deadlines herein. Questions regarding the MSC or the mandatory guidelines 20 set forth herein may be directed to Judge Torres’ Chambers at (619) 557-6384. 21 b. Full Settlement Authority Required. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.c.1, all 22 parties, party representatives, including claims adjusters for insured parties, and the 23 24 25 26 1 Counsel may request the MSC be converted to an in-person appearance through a joint 27 call or email to Judge Torres’ Chambers (efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov). Counsel 28 must meet and confer prior to making such a request. 1 principal attorney(s) responsible for the litigation must participate in the MSC. This 2 appearance must be made with full and complete authority to negotiate and enter into a 3 binding settlement.3 Counsel for a government entity is excused from this requirement if 4 the government attorney who participates in the MSC (i) has primary responsibility for 5 handling the case, and (ii) may negotiate settlement offers that the attorney is willing to 6 recommend to the government official having ultimate settlement authority. 7 c. Confidential Settlement Brief. No later than seven (7) calendar days 8 before the MSC, each party must lodge a Confidential Settlement Brief by email to 9 efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov. The Confidential Settlement Brief should not exceed ten 10 (10) pages, excluding exhibits, and must be formatted according to the requirements of 11 Local Rule 5.1(a). Parties attaching exhibits must attach only the relevant pages of multi- 12 page exhibits and must highlight the relevant portions. 13 d. Contents of Settlement Brief. All Confidential Settlement Briefs shall 14 include the content specified in the Court’s Chambers Rules, available at 15 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/torres/docs/Civil%20Chambers%20Rules.pdf. 16 e. Procedure for Zoom Videoconference. Two (2) business days prior to 17 the MSC, the Court will email counsel of record an invitation with the Zoom meeting 18 information. Participants can join the Zoom video conference by following the ZoomGov 19 20 2 The attendance requirement includes parties that are indemnified by others. Any 21 deviation from this Order requires prior Court approval. 22 3 Full authority to settle means that the individuals at the MSC are authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable 23 to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th 24 Cir. 1989). Party participants need to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 25 485-486 (D. Ariz. 2003). One of the purposes of requiring a person with complete 26 settlement authority to attend the conference is that the person’s view of the case may be altered during the face-to-face conference. Id. at 486. Limited or sum certain 27 authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595-597 (8th 28 Cir. 2001). 1 Meeting hyperlink or using the meeting ID and password provided. Each participant should 2 plan to join the Zoom video conference at least five (5) minutes before the start of the 3 MSC. Counsel is responsible for ensuring their clients can participate in the MSC. All 4 participants must display the same level of professionalism and attention during the MSC 5 as if they were attending in person (e.g., professional attire, not be driving while speaking 6 to the Court, or otherwise distracted). 7 3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by June 22, 8 2026. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present evidence 9 pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 or 705. This requirement is not limited to retained 10 experts. The parties shall designate rebuttal experts in writing by July 6, 2026. The written 11 expert designations shall include the name, address and telephone number of the expert 12 and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to provide, including 13 any summary of facts and opinions required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). The 14 designations shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and trial 15 testimony. 16 4. By August 7, 2026, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and (B). This disclosure requirement applies to all persons 18 retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, or whose duties as an employee 19 of the party regularly involve giving expert testimony. Any party that fails to make these 20 disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use evidence or 21 testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, the Court may 22 impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 23 5. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 24 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by August 21, 2026. 25 6. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by September 21, 2026. 26 The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing 27 fact discovery. 28 1 7. Failure to comply with any other discovery order of the Court may result in 2 the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on the introduction 3 of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 4 8. All pre-trial motions must be filed by October 23, 2026. Counsel for the 5 moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 6 hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 7 hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 8 to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 9 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 10 district judge. 11 9. Counsel shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law and take 12 any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) by January 22, 2027. 13 10. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 14 Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by January 22, 2027. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements 15 could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 16 11. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by 17 January 29, 2027. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 18 stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 19 exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. 20 The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall 21 note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference 23 order. 24 12. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 25 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By February 5, 26 2027, plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order 27 for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with plaintiff’s 28 1 || counsel concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both parties 2 ||shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 3 13. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 4 other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures, shall be prepared, served, and 5 lodged with the assigned district judge by February 12, 2027, and shall be in the form 6 || prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 7 14. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 8 || Dana M. Sabraw on February 19, 2027 at 10:30 a.m. 9 15. The trial is scheduled to start before the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw on 10 || March 22, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. 11 16. The parties must review the chambers rules for the assigned district judge and 12 || magistrate judge. 13 17. A post-trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 14 || within 30 days of verdict in the case. 15 18. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good 16 || cause shown. 17 19. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 18 || shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. No 19 ||reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. 20 || Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents 21 a table of authorities cited. 22 20. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this case 23 || hereafter. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. { SK 25 Dated: May 1, 2026 %6 Hon. Valerie E. Torres United States Magistrate Judge 27 28

Cites, in this corpus