Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALRADA FINANCIAL CORP. a Case No.: 3:24-cv-2166-BTM-JAC Wyoming corporation; DEPOSITION 12 TECHNOLOGY LTD., a United ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 13 Kingdom company and wholly owned EX PARTE MOTION TO AMEND subsidiary of Dalrada Financial Corp., SCHEDULING ORDER AND 14 SETTING FOLLOW-UP STATUS Plaintiffs, 15 CONFERENCE v. 16 WILLIAM IAN MARTIN BONAR, as an [ECF No. 82] 17 individual and in his official capacity;

18 DOES 1-50, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 On August 27, 2026, one day before the discovery deadline, Defendant filed an ex 22 parte Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (the “Motion”). ECF No. 82. In his Motion, 23 Defendant laid out a series of discovery disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendant over the 24 span of several months, some dating as far back as November 28, 2025. See id. at 3-5. This 25 Motion is the first time Defendant has notified the Court of these long-running discovery 26 issues. 27 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a “pretrial scheduling order “can 28 only be modified upon a showing of good cause.” Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302, F.3d 1 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotations omitted). “Under Rule 16’s 2 ‘good cause’ standard, the district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot 3 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Mat Van Inc., 4 v. Sheldon Good & Co. Auctions, LLC, No. 07-cv-912-IEG (BLM), 2009 WL 35470, at *2 5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2009) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 6 Cir. 1992)) (emphasis added). A court looks to how the moving party has pursued the action 7 to determine diligence. See, e.g., Ingram Micro, Inc. v. AIT Worldwide Logistics, Inc. et al, 8 No. 3:23-cv-2079-W-VET, ECF No. 17, at 2. (S.D. Cal. Oct 31, 2024) (collecting cases to 9 show that “the required showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed 10 throughout the entire period of time already allowed.”) “If [the moving] party was not 11 diligent, the inquiry should end.” Branch Banking and Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 12 751, 764 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). Further, Civil Local Rule 13 16.1(b) requires counsel to “proceed with diligence to take all steps necessary to bring an 14 action to readiness for trial.” CivLR 16.1(b). 15 The scheduling order was issued back on September 19, 2025. ECF No. 46. In it, 16 the parties were instructed that “[a]ll discovery motions must be filed within 30 days of the 17 service of an objection, answer or response which becomes the subject of the dispute or the 18 passage of a discovery due date without response or production” and that the parties were 19 to follow the Court’s procedures laid out in Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major’s Civil 20 Chambers Rules. Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Additionally, Magistrate Judge Janet A. 21 Cabral’s Chambers Rules require the parties to reach out to chambers “within 45 days of 22 the event giving rise to the dispute.” J. Cabral Chambers Rules., § III(D) (Apr. 28, 2026), 23 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/cabral/docs/Chambers%20Rules.pdf. Judge 24 Cabral’s chambers were not made aware of any discovery dispute until Defendant’s 25 counsel called chambers on August 27, 2026, the day before fact discovery closed, seeking 26 instruction on filing the Motion now before the Court. Thus, Defendant failed to comply 27 with either procedures laid out in the scheduling order or in Judge Cabral’s Chambers 28 Rules. 1 Given the lack of timeliness in raising these discovery disputes, the Court does not 2 || find that Defendant has been diligent. While Defendant may have represented to this Court 3 Plaintiff's lack of diligence is where the fault lies, Defendant was still required to 4 ||inform the Court of these discovery disputes to preserve the ability to raise these issues. 5 || ECF No. 46, at 2 (“A failure to comply . . . [with this scheduling order’s procedures] will 6 ||result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue.”) In other words, one party’s lack of 7 || diligence does not excuse the other from practicing diligence themselves. As such, the 8 || Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion without prejudice. 9 The Court also hereby SETS a follow-up status conference for September 15, 2026, 10 || at 9:00 am, Pacific Standard Time, via videoconference. Videoconference information to 11 || follow this order. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: September 9, 2026 ( bone Yi C Ven 15 on. Janet A. Cabral 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28