Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIE DOSCH, Case No.: 25-cv-02856-AJB-JLB 12 ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION Plaintiff, TO EXTEND DEADLINES 13 v. 14 (Doc. No. 20) THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., a 15 Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 16 through 50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue All Current Deadlines. 20 (Doc. No. 20.) The parties state that they are “actively working to schedule the depositions 21 of multiple witnesses and have tentatively secured mutually agreeable dates for several of 22 the necessary witnesses in September and October 2026.” (Id. at 2.) The parties provide 23 that “additional time is needed to complete the deposition schedule, with the remaining 24 depositions expected to take place in late October, November, and possibly December 25 2026.” (Id.) This is the parties’ second extension request.1 (Doc. Nos. 18; 19.) On 26 27 1 Although the Joint Motion states this is the parties’ third extension request (Doc. No. 20 at 2), the docket 28 1 August 11, 2026, finding that the Joint Motion did not sufficiently address the parties’ 2 diligence in pursuing fact discovery to date, the Court issued an Order requiring a 3 supplemental brief. (Doc. No. 21.) 4 The Court ordered the parties to address the number of depositions completed to 5 date, and how many remain outstanding. (Id.) The Court also required that the parties 6 provide good cause for why any outstanding depositions cannot be completed before the 7 current October 9, 2026 fact discovery cutoff date. (Id.) The Court noted that “an 8 overextended case load is not necessarily good cause unless it is the result of events 9 unforeseen and uncontrollable by both counsel and client.” (Id. (quoting Reed v. Kariko, 10 No. 3:20-cv-5580-BHS-DWC, 2021 WL 3563089, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2021)). 11 Finally, the Court asked the parties to address which, if any, of the outstanding depositions 12 will impact expert opinions. (Id.) 13 On August 17, 2026, the parties filed their supplemental brief. (Doc. No. 22.) The 14 parties provide the following: (i) no depositions have occurred to date; (ii) there is currently 15 only one deposition scheduled, (iii) two depositions are anticipated to be taken some time 16 in late September or early October, (iv) and the parties are still conferring on the availability 17 of Hrissi Samartzidou and of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee. (Id. at 2.) The parties 18 did not address which of the outstanding depositions will impact expert opinions. (See 19 generally id.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that she has previously scheduled, conflicting 20 obligations, including trial and depositions in unrelated matters. (Id. at 3.) 21 “[D]istrict judges have broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the 22 course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.” Avila v. Willits Env’t 23 Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 16(b)(4) requires “good cause” and “the judge’s consent” to modify a scheduling order. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the 26 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 27 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the 28 party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the 1 || focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” /d. at 2 ||609 (citation omitted). If the moving party fails to show diligence, “‘the inquiry should 3 || end.’” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Johnson, 4 ||975 F.2d at 609). 5 Here, the parties do not meet their burden to show good cause justifying a three- 6 month extension of the fact discovery cut-off, much less an extension of all remaining dates 7 deadlines. The Joint Motion states that Plaintiffs counsel has obligations in other 8 ||matters, and an extension is “necessary to accommodate counsel’s pre-existing 9 || obligations.” (Doc. No. 22 at 3.) However, two other attorneys of record have appeared on 10 || Plaintiff's behalf in this matter. The Joint Motion is silent as to those attorneys’ schedules 11 || and availability to participate in the outstanding depositions and discovery. Moreover, the 12 || parties do not identify which, if any, outstanding depositions or discovery will affect the 13 expert opinions. Accordingly, the parties have not established good cause to extend the 14 ||expert discovery deadlines. The Joint Motion to Continue All Current Deadlines is 15 DENIED without prejudice. Any subsequent extension request must adequately 16 demonstrate the parties’ diligence in complying with the current deadlines. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: August 18, 2026 □ 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28