Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CUEBIQ GROUP, LLC., Case No.: 25-cv-2255-JAH-DEB 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER 13 DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND FOR PAEDAE, INC., dba GIMBAL and 14 EXTENSION OF FACT DISCOVERY operating as INFILLION, GIMBAL, 15 INC., 16 Defendants. [DKT. NO. 144] 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Before the Court are Defendants PaeDae, Inc. dba Gimbal and Gimbal, Inc.’s 20 (“Gimbal”) Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (“Motion to Compel”) and 21 for Limited Extension of Fact Discovery (“Motion to Extend”). Dkt. No. 144. Plaintiff 22 Cuebiq Group, LLC (“Cuebiq”) opposes the Motions. Dkt. No. 146. For the reasons set 23 forth below, the Court DENIES both Motions. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On October 28, 2025, this Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a March 27, 2026 3 fact discovery cut-off. Dkt. No. 85 at 6.1 At the parties’ request, the Court subsequently 4 extended the cut-off to May 29, 2026. Dkt. No. 103 at 1. 5 On July 23, 2025, Gimbal served its Second Set of Interrogatories, including 6 Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11, and its Second Set of Requests for Production (“RFP”), 7 including RFP Nos. 38–57. Dkt. Nos. 144-2 ¶¶ 6–7; 144-7; 144-8. On August 22, 2025, 8 Cuebiq responded and objected to numerous requests on, among others, relevance, and 9 proportionality grounds. Dkt. Nos. 144-2 ¶¶ 8–9; 144-9; 144-10. 10 On January 16, 2026, Gimbal served its Third Set of Requests for Production, 11 including RFP Nos. 58–68. Dkt. Nos. 144-2 ¶ 11; 144-12. On March 23, 2026, Cuebiq 12 responded and objected that numerous requests were, among other things, overbroad, 13 unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Dkt. Nos. 144-2 ¶ 13; 14 144-14. 15 On May 8, 2026, former counsel for Gimbal filed a Motion to Withdraw. 16 Dkt. No. 127. Two days later, current counsel for Gimbal filed a Notice of Appearance. 17 Dkt. No. 128. 18 On May 21, 2026, Gimbal’s new counsel contacted the Court to initiate a dispute 19 concerning Cuebiq’s responses and objections to Gimbal’s written discovery requests. 20 Dkt. No. 139. On May 27, 2026, the Court held an informal discovery conference. 21 Dkt. No. 141. 22 On May 29, 2026, fact discovery closed. Dkt. No. 103 at 1. 23 24 25 1 This case was removed from the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). Dkt. No. 1. In the SDNY case, the fact-discovery cut-off date was extended twice. The SDNY 26 originally set a fact discovery cut-off of May 20, 2025. Dkt. No. 19 at 2. Upon the parties’ 27 request, that was extended to August 22, 2025. Dkt. No. 34 at 1. That cut-off was extended again at the parties’ request to September 19, 2025. Dkt. No. 42. 28 1 On June 12, 2026, Gimbal filed this Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend the 2 fact discovery cut-off. Dkt. No. 144. 3 III. MOTION TO COMPEL 4 Gimbal’s first pending motion seeks to compel further responses to its written 5 discovery served on July 23, 2025 (to which Cuebiq responded on August 22, 20252) and 6 on January 16, 2026 (to which Cuebiq responded on March 23, 2026). Cuebiq contends 7 Gimbal did not diligently preserve and timely raise its disputes over Cuebiq’s responses 8 and objections. The Court agrees that Gimbal did not timely preserve its discovery disputes. 9 Parties seeking to compel discovery must do so in a timely manner. See KST Data, 10 Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1132, 1135–36 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (denying motion 11 to compel filed four weeks before discovery cut-off because it was untimely); Washington 12 v. Gustafson, No. 14-cv-0628-TLN-DB, 2017 WL 616438, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017) 13 (denying motion to compel filed three weeks after scheduling order deadline because it was 14 untimely). 15 This undersigned’s Chambers Rules require parties to raise discovery disputes with 16 the court “within thirty (30) days of the date of the event giving rise to the dispute.” Mag. 17 J. Daniel E. Butcher Civ. Chambers R. V.E. (S.D. Cal., June 5, 2025); see also Dkt. No. 18 85 at 6 (“If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel shall file an 19 appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined in the undersigned 20 magistrate judge’s chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a 21 waiver of a party’s discovery issue.”) (emphasis in original). 22 Gimbal’s Motion to Compel is untimely under the Court’s Chambers Rules and the 23 operative Scheduling Order. 24 25 26 27 2 The Court presumes that the March 24, 2025 signature date on Cuebiq’s responses and objections to Gimbal’s Second Set of Requests for Production and Interrogatories is a 28 1 The events that give rise to the present dispute occurred on August 22, 2025, when 2 Cuebiq served its responses and objections to Gimbal’s Second Set of Requests for 3 Production and Interrogatories, and on March 23, 2026, when Cuebiq served its responses 4 and objections to Gimbal’s Third Set of Requests for Production. Dkt. Nos. 144-2 ¶¶ 6–9, 5 11, 13; 144-9; 144-10; 144-14. Gimbal, however, did not raise these challenges with the 6 Court within thirty days as required. Instead, Gimbal first contacted the Court regarding 7 these disputes on May 21, 2026. Gimbal’s Motion to Compel, therefore, is DENIED as 8 untimely. Stoba v. Saveology.com, LLC, No. 13-cv-02925-BAS-NLS, 2015 WL 5040024, 9 at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015) (affirming Magistrate Judge’s denial of motion to compel 10 as untimely under deadline established in the Magistrate Judge’s Chambers Rules and 11 scheduling order) (citation omitted); see also Greer v. County of San Diego, No. 19-cv- 12 378-JO-DEB, 2022 WL 16951840, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2022) (finding moving 13 party waived right to bring motion to compel by failing to raise discovery dispute within 14 30 days as required by Chambers Rules); Cornerstone Staffing Sols., Inc. v. James, No. 15 12-CV-01527-RS (JCS), 2015 WL 13037133 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2015) (denying motion to 16 compel as untimely, where motion was filed after deadlines established by local rule and 17 court order), objections overruled, 2015 WL 13037132 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2015). 18 IV. MOTION TO EXTEND 19 Gimbal also moves to extend the fact discovery cut-off (which expired on May 29, 20 2026) by four months until September 30, 2026. Cuebiq opposes an extension, asserting 21 that Gimbal has not diligently pursued and responded to discovery. The Court agrees that 22 Gimbal has not demonstrated the good cause and diligence required to obtain an extension 23 of the fact discovery cut-off. 24 A request to modify the scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Dkt. No. 85 at 9 (the dates set forth in the Scheduling Order 26 Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings “will not be modified except for good 27 cause shown”); Dkt. No. 103 at 2 (Amended Scheduling Order incorporates all other 28 aspects the original Scheduling Order). The good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the 1 diligence of the requesting party. Sheridan v. Reinke, 611 F. App’x. 381, 384 (9th Cir. 2 2015); see also Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 3 2006) (“We decline to limit the district court’s ability to control its docket by enforcing 4 a discovery termination date, even in the face of requested supplemental discovery that 5 might have revealed highly probative evidence, when the plaintiff’s prior discovery efforts 6 were not diligent.”); Stoba, 2015 WL 5040024, at *7 (“there is ‘sound circuit-wide policy’ 7 supporting the enforcement of Rule 16 deadlines.”) (citations omitted). 8 Gimbal seeks four additional months to “obtain outstanding materials, complete 9 review of Cuebiq’s productions, resolve identified deficiencies, prepare witnesses, conduct 10 party and third-party depositions, and complete discovery relating to issues already in the 11 case.” Dkt. No. 144-1 at 20. Gimbal’s Motion, however, does not demonstrate that it 12 diligently pursued this discovery within the seven months that fact discovery was open and 13 why it could not complete its fact discovery within the allotted time. To the contrary, and 14 as discussed above in the Court’s denial of Gimbal’s Motion to Compel, Gimbal did not 15 timely and diligently pursue discovery from Cuebiq.3 16 Gimbal’s present Motions follow shortly after Gimbal substituted new counsel in 17 the case. Thus, it appears new counsel reviewed the discovery conducted by former counsel 18 and determined more needed to be done. Substitution of counsel, however, does not 19 establish good cause to extend existing deadlines. Williams v. James River Grp. Inc., 20 627 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1179 (D. Nev. 2022) (appearance of new counsel 21 does not establish good cause for deadline extensions); Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc. v. Nat’l Union 22 Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 308 F.R.D. 649, 655 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (finding motion to 23 amend scheduling order “suspect in light of [defendant’s] recent substitution of counsel.”); 24 25 26 3 Gimbal’s lack of diligence is responding to Cuebiq’s discovery further confirms its 27 overall lack of diligence. Gimbal violated two court-ordered discovery deadlines, which resulted in imposition of sanctions. Dkt. No. 137. 28 1 || see also Dkt. No. 127 at 2 (Defendants represented that substitution of counsel “would not 2 delay any Court deadline in this proceeding nor would it prejudice any party.”). 3 Vv. CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, Gimbal’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses 5 ||and Motion to Extend Fact Discovery (Dkt. No. 144) is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: August 17, 2026 _ 9 Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28