Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON ANDERSON, individually, and Case No.: 25-cv-03577-AJB-DEB on behalf of other members of the general 12 public similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 DENYING IN PART JOINT Plaintiff, MOTION TO CONTINUE 14 v. DEADLINES 15 7-Eleven, Inc., (Doc. No. 43) 16 Defendant. 17 19 Before the Court is the parties’ renewed joint motion to continue Plaintiff Jason 20 Anderson’s deadline to file a motion for class certification, the parties’ expert and fact 21 discovery deadlines, and vacate the remaining schedule to be reset after the Court rules on 22 Plaintiff’s imminent motion for class certification. (Doc. No. 43.) 23 “The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of 24 litigation[.]” Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) 25 (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992)). “A 26 schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. 27 P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the 28 party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Specifically, “[t]he pretrial 1 schedule may be modified ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party 2 seeking the extension.’” Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087 (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 3 “If th[e] party [seeking the modification] was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 4 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 5 Unlike the parties’ initial attempt, the instant motion complies with all applicable 6 rules and addresses the parties’ diligence. (See generally Doc. No. 43.) According to the 7 parties, they are currently embroiled in discovery disputes which “independently make the 8 current schedule unworkable.” (Id. at 5.) Specifically, the parties point to difficulty with 9 the terms submitted to search and collect electronically stored information, the requirement 10 to conduct manual retrieval on-site of information from legacy systems employee-by- 11 employee, and the need to finalize negotiations regarding the appropriate sampling level. 12 (Id.) “Despite months of meet and confer, Plaintiff still has not received the class list, time 13 records, or pay records essential to preparing the class-certification motion.” (Id. at 6.) 14 Defendant estimates that the soonest it could produce information would be around the 15 third week of October 2026. (Id.) 16 Based on the representations and supporting declarations, the Court is persuaded that 17 an extension is warranted; however, the length of the requested extension exceeds the cause 18 provided by the parties at this juncture. With production estimated at the third week of 19 October, the Court finds an extension of five months justified under the circumstances. 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ joint motion 21 and AMENDS the scheduling order (Doc. No. 23) as follows: 22 Motion for Class Certification1 (Doc. No. 23 ¶ 3) January 7, 2027 23 24 25 1 A briefing schedule will be issued by the Court upon the filing of any motion for class certification. The parties include a proposed briefing schedule seeking forty-five days for Defendant to file an 26 opposition and fourteen days for Plaintiff to file a reply. (Doc. No. 43 at 8.) The parties do not provide justification for such an elongated briefing schedule. Absent a showing of good cause distinguishing 27 Plaintiff’s imminent motion for class certification from other motions for class certification, the briefing schedule will reflect the Court’s typical schedule: fourteen days from the filing of the motion for 28 !

;

.

B 10:00 a.m. 14 All other deadlines and requirements set forth in the scheduling order remain in 15 || effect. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: August 11, 2026 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28