Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
AL Global Corporation is the plaintiff in a refund dispute against the United States in the Southern District of California. The order describes the subject matter mainly through the government's discovery targets, which include ERTC claims prepared for the plaintiff, payroll records the government says are needed to verify qualified wages, the plaintiff's corporate income tax return, and information from the plaintiff's parent company about aggregated entities and gross receipts.
Fact discovery was due September 18, 2026, after the court on September 4 granted in part the government's second extension request and added thirty days. On September 18, the government moved for a third extension of forty-nine days, to November 6, 2026, tied to four third-party subpoenas (Baker Tilly US LLC, ADP, Economic Incentives Advisory Group, and Youngevity International Inc.) noticed on August 31 and September 1, and to various unscheduled depositions. Because the motion was filed fewer than seven days before the deadline, the court's chambers rules required the government to address excusable neglect as well as good cause.
After a September 25 status and discovery conference, the court kept fact discovery open only for outstanding requests or procedural issues relating to already-issued third-party subpoenas while the motion was briefed. The plaintiff proposed a limited, final extension with guardrails and argued the government had not diligently completed discovery in the time already allowed. Both sides agreed that expert deadlines should not change and that depositions would be scheduled on mutually available dates.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit granted the motion in part and denied it in part. She applied the Rule 16(b)(4) good-cause standard, which turns primarily on the movant's diligence, and, because the deadline had arrived, the Rule 6(b)(1)(B) excusable-neglect inquiry under the four Bateman factors. The court found no prejudice to the plaintiff, who did not claim any. It faulted the government, however, for not explaining its two-week delay after the September 4 order or its filing on the deadline date despite knowing of its outstanding subpoenas and its difficulty locating EIAG. Weighing that difficulty and the apparent relevance of the subpoenas to the plaintiff's refund claims, the court allowed limited relief.
The court rejected the government's argument that requiring leave of court for further discovery contravenes the federal rules and undercuts efficiency, observing that discovery has necessary boundaries (citing Hickman v. Taylor) and that this was the third extension request. It extended the fact discovery deadline to November 6, 2026 only for the four subpoenas and for remaining fact depositions unscheduled before the order. Fact discovery was not otherwise reopened. The court also declined the plaintiff's request to constrain the supplementation period for expert designations or disclosures, reasoning that the current expert schedule and Rule 26(e)(2) give both sides adequate time. All other dates in the September 4 scheduling order remain in effect.
Open items remain. The plaintiff has moved for a protective order as to three of the subpoenas, and the government's filing indicates that Baker Tilly and EIAG may require a court order to respond. The court set an October 30, 2026 status conference to discuss a brief further extension solely to complete depositions; the outcome of that conference is not in the materials reviewed. This is a nonfinal case-management order and decides nothing about the merits of the refund claims.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking more time on or just before a scheduling deadline must show good cause, which centers on diligence, and may also have to show excusable neglect under the Bateman factors.
- A court can grant a discovery extension in part by confining it to identified subpoenas and depositions instead of reopening fact discovery generally.
- Repeated extension requests weigh against broader relief, and unexplained timing counts against the movant even when some relief is granted.
- A request to constrain Rule 26(e)(2) supplementation of expert designations was denied because no justification was shown, so the existing expert schedule stands.
- This is a magistrate judge's nonfinal discovery-scheduling order in one case, so it carries no precedential weight beyond its persuasive reasoning.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a magistrate judge can use Rule 16 to hold a party to a disciplined schedule while still permitting targeted catch-up discovery. The court criticized the government's unexplained timing but still granted limited relief because of the difficulty locating EIAG and the apparent relevance of the subpoenas; the order does not announce a separate finding on each Bateman factor. By tying the extension to named subpoenas and unscheduled depositions, the court preserved the existing expert and other deadlines.
Litigants facing a third extension should explain each delay specifically and expect narrow, subpoena-by-subpoena relief.