Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gregory Kosinovsky, representing himself, sued former employer Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for employment discrimination, challenging a performance appraisal and his termination. The February 12, 2026 scheduling order set fact discovery to close February 12, 2027, and trial for May 24, 2027. Kosinovsky moved under Rule 16(b)(4) to extend fact discovery six months, to August 12, 2027, and move every later date by six months. LLNS opposed that continuance but did not oppose an April 30, 2027 fact-discovery cutoff.
The discovery history included an approximately 3,000-page production made available through a file-sharing link in June 2026, later supplementation, and Kosinovsky's contention that referenced communications remained unproduced. LLNS maintained that its production was complete and that he had not moved to compel. He also served a second set of 13 interrogatories and 13 requests for production; LLNS responded with objections to every request, and the parties had not conferred about them.
Kosinovsky separately sought four consecutive one-hour remote depositions of the appraisal's author and three project leads who provided input. LLNS declined to produce them, invoking Rule 30's treatment of employees who are not officers, directors, or managing agents and questioning relevance. Kosinovsky argued their appraisal roles made them managing agents. The parties were preparing a joint discovery letter due November 6, and the order did not resolve that dispute or the other outstanding objections.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the scheduling motion only in part. It extended fact discovery to April 30, 2027, reset the last dispositive-motion hearing to May 6, the pretrial-filings meet-and-confer to June 21, the final pretrial conference to August 5, and jury selection and trial to August 16, 2027. Expert-disclosure and expert-discovery dates remained in effect. It otherwise denied the motion and denied the administrative motion for leave to file a reply, resolving ECF Nos. 51 and 54.
Under Rule 16(b)(4), good cause primarily concerns the moving party's diligence, but diligence alone is insufficient: the existing schedule also must be impossible to meet reasonably despite that diligence. The court found Kosinovsky diligent based on his document requests, accommodations of LLNS, efforts to obtain missing materials, court-ordered conferral, timely second discovery and deposition requests, and attempt to stipulate before moving. LLNS's criticisms of his delay and other conduct did not establish a lack of diligence.
The remaining work nevertheless supported only eleven additional weeks. The court directed the second-set objections and any production-completeness dispute into its standing order's meet-and-confer and joint-letter process, saying anticipated court procedures were a reason to use that process now. It would decide the pending witness-production issue, and Kosinovsky could proceed through LLNS or Rule 45 subpoenas. Four estimated hours of testimony could be scheduled quickly. The court adopted LLNS's unopposed, nonprejudicial April 30 proposal and allowed a further targeted Civil Local Rule 6-3 motion if its dispute rulings left discovery that reasonably could not be finished by then.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 16(b)(4) requires both diligence and a showing that the existing schedule cannot reasonably be met despite that diligence.
- The court found Kosinovsky diligent but concluded that the discrete remaining discovery did not justify his requested six-month continuance.
- Unresolved objections and production disputes were directed to the standing order's conferral and joint-letter process rather than decided in this scheduling order.
- The new fact-discovery cutoff is April 30, 2027, with trial reset to August 16, 2027, while the expert-disclosure and expert-discovery dates remain unchanged.
- The court considered the reply but denied leave to file it, and preserved the possibility of a further targeted extension if necessary after the discovery disputes are resolved.
Why It Matters
The order applies the good-cause standard by separating diligence from need. Kosinovsky's active pursuit of discovery satisfied the first requirement, but the defined scope of the remaining work defeated his request for six months. The court instead matched the extension to the tasks before it and adopted the narrower period LLNS conceded would cause no prejudice.
The decision also channels discovery disagreements into the court's existing joint-letter mechanism instead of treating their anticipated complexity as grounds for a broad continuance. Its without-prejudice provision leaves a targeted route for additional time if the eventual rulings create work that cannot reasonably be completed by April 30, 2027.