Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINCENT RODRIGUEZ, et al., Case No.: 3:25-cv-01445-GPC-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 FCA US, LLC, et al., MOTION TO EXTEND CERTAIN 15 Defendants. DISCOVERY DEADLINES, and 16 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED 17 SCHEDULING ORDER 18 [ECF No. 29] 19 20 21 22 23 Before the Court is Defendant FCA US, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “FCA”)1 motion to 24 modify the scheduling order. ECF No. 29. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 25 GRANTS the motion. 26 27 1 Though there are two defendants in this action, the instant motion was solely filed by 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs Vincent Rodriguez and Christina Rodriguez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 3 filed this action in San Diego Superior Court, and Defendants FCA US, LLC and Future 4 Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Concord (“collectively, “Defendants”) removed the case to 5 federal court on June 5, 2025. ECF No. 1. After the matter did not settle during the 6 September 15, 2026, Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, the Court held a Case 7 Management Conference on October 21, 2025. ECF Nos. 11, 14. The Court issued a 8 Scheduling Order the same day, setting March 6, 2026, as the fact discovery cutoff and 9 April 6, 2026, as the deadline for initial expert designations and disclosures. ECF No. 15 10 at 1–3. 11 On March 6, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to modify the scheduling order, 12 seeking a 90-day extension of all deadlines. ECF No. 18. There, the parties represented to 13 the Court that they exchanged written discovery, but had not yet completed all of their 14 depositions or the vehicle inspection. ECF No. 18 at 2–3 (explaining that they intended to 15 depose both Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness). Though the Court expressed 16 its concerns regarding the parties’ delay in filing the motion and the lack of details included 17 to support their diligence, the Court partially granted the request. ECF No. 19 at 2–3. The 18 Court retained March 6, 2026, as the fact discovery cutoff, but permitted the depositions 19 of Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness to be taken by April 20, 2026, and the 20 vehicle inspection to be completed by May 18, 2026. Id. at 4. The Court extended the 21 deadline for designations and disclosures of initial experts to June 8, 2026. Id. 22 On June 24, 2026, the parties filed a second joint motion to modify the scheduling 23 order, seeking 70-day to 100-day extensions of all deadlines. ECF No. 27. There, the parties 24 represented to the Court that in the three months since their first request for extension on 25 March 6, 2026, they had not completed any further discovery, despite the Court setting 26 firm deadlines for doing so. For example, Plaintiffs did not appear for their noticed 27 depositions on April 30, 2026. ECF No. 27 at 3. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel never 28 confirmed the April 30, 2026, date for the deposition of Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness, 1 so it was rescheduled to May 20, 2026, but was not ultimately taken. Id. Further, the vehicle 2 inspection scheduled for May 26, 2026, was never completed due to objections served by 3 Plaintiffs’ counsel days before the agreed-to date. Id. The parties referred to conclusory 4 “staffing changes” as reasons for some, but not all, of the delays and failings. Id. Again, 5 the Court expressed its concerns regarding the parties’ lengthy delay in filing the motion, 6 and the parties’ repeated failures to demonstrate the requisite diligence. ECF No. 28 at 3– 7 4. The Court, thus, denied the motion. Id. at 4. The Court, however, permitted the parties 8 to file noticed motions to amend the scheduling order, and set a July 2, 2026, deadline for 9 doing so. Id. 10 Defendant filed the instant Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order on July 2, 2026. 11 ECF No. 29. The Court set a briefing schedule in the matter, requiring Plaintiffs’ response 12 by July 20, 2026, and permitting Defendant’s reply by July 27, 2026. ECF No. 30. Plaintiffs 13 did not respond to the motion. In light of a dispute before the district judge regarding a 14 previous Rule 68 offer of judgment, the Court continued its August 3, 2026, motion hearing 15 to September 18, 2026. ECF No. 36; see ECF No. 34. That issue has since been resolved. 16 ECF No. 38. The Court held a hearing on September 18, 2026, and heard arguments from 17 both sides. ECF No. 39. The Court also confirmed with Plaintiffs’ counsel that Plaintiffs 18 are in possession of the vehicle. Id. This order follows: 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 21 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 22 the judge’s consent”); see also ECF No. 15 at 7 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he dates 23 [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 24 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 25 request”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, 26 e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Ellis v. 27 Arias, 3:24-cv-00713-TWR-AHG, 2025 WL 3553673, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2025). 28 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 1 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 3 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. ECF No. 15 at 7; Johnson, 975 4 F.2d at 609 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 5 modification. … If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”). Therefore, “a 6 party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth 7 by the court.” Doe v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-217-JLS-AHG, 2025 8 WL 2881574, at *1–*2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) (quoting Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. 9 16-cv-1103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018)). 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 Here, Defendant seeks to extend all scheduling order deadlines. ECF No. 29. 12 Defendant represents to the Court that it has been diligently pursuing discovery and argues 13 that an extension “will serve the interests of justice by ensuring both parties have a full and 14 fair opportunity to develop their cases.” ECF No. 29-1 at 10. As such, Defendant seeks 15 extensions of its own deadlines, as well as Plaintiffs’ deadlines. 16 The crux of Defendant’s motion is that the delays and deficiencies referenced above 17 were caused by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and not Defendant, so Defendant would be entitled to 18 an extension because it acted with the requisite diligence. For example, Defendant 19 references staffing changes at Plaintiffs’ counsel’s law firm, Strategic Legal Practices APC, 20 which “impacted their office’s ability to respond to FCA’s requests to confirm the 21 depositions or vehicle inspections.” Id. at 7. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ failure to 22 participate in the action was beyond its control and the details regarding the staffing 23 changes and their impacts are only known by Plaintiffs’ counsel, explaining that “FCA has 24 no independent knowledge of the personnel changes, their timing, or their impact on 25 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ability to respond to discovery requests and attend scheduled 26 depositions.” Id. at 9. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ failure to appear at their depositions, 27 and other delays, “establishes circumstances beyond FCA’s control that warrant 28 modification of the scheduling order.” Id. The Court, however, appreciates Defendant’s 1 practical approach in requesting extensions of both parties’ deadlines, obviating any 2 prejudice to Plaintiffs and ensuring that the case will be decided on the merits. As such, the 3 Court finds good cause to grant the motion. 4 The Court addressed Plaintiffs’ counsel’s lack of diligence during the hearing, 5 including expressing concern regarding Plaintiffs’ failure to appear for their depositions 6 without adequate explanation. ECF No. 39. To avoid any further delays, if Defendant does 7 not receive a response from Plaintiffs within three (3) business days regarding scheduling 8 depositions or the vehicle inspection, Defendant must notify the Court via email (at 9 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) and the Court will schedule a Discovery Conference. 10 IV. CONCLUSION AND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 11 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. ECF 12 No. 29. The Court issues the following First Amended Scheduling Order: 13 1. March 6, 2026 remains the deadline for completion of fact discovery, except 14 for the following: 15 a. The depositions of Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness must 16 be taken on or before October 30, 2026. 17 b. The vehicle inspection must take place no later than October 30, 2026. 18 2. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 19 December 4, 2026. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A), the parties must identify any 20 person who may be used at trial to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of 21 the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange 22 of rebuttal experts shall be by January 8, 2027. The written designations shall include the 23 name, address and telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the 24 testimony the expert is expected to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the 25 expert charges for deposition and trial testimony. 26 3. By December 4, 2026, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions 27 in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 28 requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 1 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 2 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 3 make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 4 evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 5 the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 6 4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 7 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by January 8, 2027. 8 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by February 5, 2027. 9 The parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing 10 fact discovery. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 11 may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 12 the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 13 6. All other pretrial motions, including those addressing Daubert issues related 14 to dispositive motions must be filed by March 5, 2027. Pursuant to Honorable 15 Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, all motions for summary judgment 16 shall be accompanied by a separate statement of undisputed material facts. Any opposition 17 to a summary judgment motion shall include a response to the separate statement of 18 undisputed material facts. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date 19 from the law clerk of the judge who will hear the motion. Motion papers MUST be filed 20 and served the same day of obtaining a motion hearing date from chambers. A briefing 21 schedule will be issued once a motion has been filed. The period of time between the date 22 you request a motion date and the hearing date may vary. Please plan accordingly. Failure 23 to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 24 7. An in-person Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) shall be conducted 25 on June 10, 2027 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 26 / / 27 / / 28 / / 1 a. The Court requires the personal, in-person attendance of all named parties, 2 party representatives with full2 settlement authority, including claims 3 adjusters for insured defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for 4 the litigation at the conference 5 b. Plaintiffs must serve on Defendants a written settlement proposal, which 6 must include a specific demand amount, no later than May 20, 2027. The 7 defendants must respond to the plaintiff in writing with a specific offer 8 amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties should not file or 9 otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties must include 10 their written settlement proposals in their respective Settlement Conference 11 Statements to the Court. 12 c. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person, via videoconference, 13 or by phone no later than May 27, 2027. 14 d. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will be 15 served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than 16 June 3, 2027. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 17 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of the Settlement 18 Conference Statement must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory 19 Settlement Conference Rules (located on the court website at 20 21 22 2 The Court reminds the parties that parties and party representatives with full and complete 23 authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present at the MSC. Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to 24 agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., 25 Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman 26 v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain 27 authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person who is not present at the MSC before 28 1 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Mandator 2 y%20Settlement%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). 3 e. Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter for 4 the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than 5 June 3, 2027. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 6 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a party choose to 7 prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must 8 comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules. 9 f. No later than June 3, 2027, each party must submit to the Court via email 10 (not filed) (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, titles, and email 11 addresses of all attendees. Court staff will then email all participants detailed 12 instructions regarding the location of the Court’s conference rooms. 13 g. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers Rules 14 and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate Judge 15 Allison H. Goddard. 16 8. Pursuant to Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, 17 the parties are excused from the requirement of Local Rule 16.1(f)(2)(a); no Memoranda 18 of Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed. 19 9. The parties must comply with the pretrial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 26(a)(3) no later than July 2, 2027. Failure to comply with these disclosure 21 requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 37. 23 10. Counsel shall confer and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1.f.4.a on 24 or before July 9, 2027. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 25 stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 26 exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. 27 The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall 28 note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. 1 P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference 2 order. 3 11. Counsel for plaintiffs will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 4 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By July 16, 2027, 5 plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order for 6 review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with plaintiff’s 7 attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, and both parties 8 shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 9 12. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 10 other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and 11 lodged with the assigned district judge by July 23, 2027, and shall be in the form prescribed 12 in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 13 13. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 14 Gonzalo P. Curiel on July 30, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. The Court will set a trial date during the 15 pretrial conference. The Court will also schedule a motion in limine hearing date during 16 the pretrial conference. 17 14. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 18 and magistrate judge. 19 15. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 20 within 30 days of verdict in the case. 21 16. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified again unless 22 extraordinary circumstances are presented. 23 17. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to all motions noticed for 24 the same motion day shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length, per party, without 25 leave of the judge who will hear the motion. No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) 26 pages without leave of a district court judge. Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) 27 pages in length shall have a table of contents and a table of authorities cited. 28 / / l 18. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this 2 || case hereafter. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 23, 2026 . Decor H. Honorable Allison H. Goddard 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28