Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Evans Hotels and UNITE HERE Local 30 have litigated this Southern District of California case since 2018. A June 2026 scheduling order set initial expert disclosures for November 6, rebuttal disclosures for December 7, and the close of expert discovery for January 27, 2027. Defendants then filed a summary judgment motion that, if successful, would end the entire case.
The parties jointly presented an opposed scheduling dispute. Defendants asked to pause expert work until the district judge decided summary judgment, arguing that experts were unnecessary to resolve the motion and would impose tens of thousands of dollars in additional expense. Plaintiffs opposed further delay in an eight-year-old case. Both sides also argued the merits of summary judgment, but the magistrate judge expressly declined to assess those merits because they belonged to the district judge.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard found good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and granted defendants’ request. The key questions were whether the pending motion could dispose of the case or the issue targeted by discovery, and whether the motion could be decided without the additional discovery. Those factors allow a court to manage cost and timing without predicting who will win the motion.
Both requirements were met. Summary judgment could resolve the case in full, and the parties did not dispute that expert testimony was unnecessary for one issue and impermissible on the other. Continuing with expert reports in the meantime would risk substantial avoidable expense. The court concluded that pausing expert discovery best served Rule 1’s command to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action, despite plaintiffs’ legitimate concern about delay.
The court did more than move the three expert dates. It vacated every date and deadline in the June 18, 2026 First Amended Scheduling Order. After the district judge resolves summary judgment, the magistrate judge will either issue a new scheduling order on the court’s own initiative or set a case-management conference. The order does not grant summary judgment, predict the outcome, or decide any merits issue.
Key Takeaways
- A potentially case-dispositive motion can establish good cause to pause discovery when the motion can be decided without the discovery being stayed.
- The inquiry is about cost, efficiency, and the scope of the motion—not a preliminary assessment that the motion is likely to succeed.
- Concrete expert expenses strengthen a Rule 16 request, particularly when the work may become unnecessary.
- Delay in an older case weighs against a stay but may be outweighed by substantial cost avoidance and a clean legal issue.
- Here, all scheduling-order dates were vacated; parties should not assume that only expert deadlines moved or that prior dates remain operative.
Why It Matters
California federal litigators often face expensive expert work while summary judgment is pending. This order gives a focused framework for seeking relief: identify precisely how the motion could dispose of the case, show that the motion is decidable on the existing record, quantify avoidable burdens, and request a workable reset mechanism.
The decision also illustrates careful division of authority. The magistrate judge managed discovery without commenting on the dispositive motion assigned to the district judge. Parties opposing a pause should therefore focus on concrete prejudice from delay or explain why the requested expert work is actually needed to oppose summary judgment.