Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mark Dionela is the plaintiff and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is the defendant in this action in the Southern District of California. A scheduling order (ECF No. 15) had set the close of fact discovery for December 15, 2026. The parties filed a joint motion (ECF No. 18) asking Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard to extend that deadline by 60 days. The order does not describe the underlying claims, so it addresses only case scheduling.
In the motion, the parties represented that they had been diligently pursuing discovery and had served a first set of interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, and deposition notices directed to the plaintiff and Experian. They further said they had begun settlement discussions and had mutually agreed to extend their discovery response deadlines. They sought the additional time to support those settlement efforts, proposing to move the fact discovery cutoff from December 15, 2026, to February 15, 2027.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion, finding good cause. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent, and the chambers rules likewise require a showing of good cause for any continuance. The court described good cause as a non-rigorous standard that courts apply broadly and with wide discretion, but one that centers on the moving party's diligence and reasons for seeking modification. A party shows good cause by acting diligently to meet the original deadlines. Relying on the parties' representations about the discovery they had served and their settlement discussions, the court found the standard met.
The order sets a discovery conference for December 8, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. by videoconference before Judge Goddard, where counsel must be prepared to discuss the status of settlement and discovery. Fact discovery must now be completed by February 16, 2027. The order's analysis describes the request as a move to February 15, 2027, but the ordering paragraph itself specifies February 16, so that is the operative date. Expert designations and Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosures are due March 16, 2027. Rebuttal expert designations and supplemental disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(D) are due April 13, 2027. Expert discovery closes May 11, 2027, and other pretrial motions are due June 11, 2027.
The order restates the discovery-dispute procedures. Counsel must meet and confer promptly and in good faith under Local Rule 26.1(a), and failing to do so waives the discovery issue. If the parties reach an impasse, the movant must email chambers within 45 days of service of the disputed written discovery response to request a telephonic conference. No discovery motion may be filed before that conference unless the court grants leave. Noncompliance with discovery orders may bring Rule 37 sanctions, including exclusion of experts. All other deadlines in ECF No. 15 are unchanged, including the July 12, 2027 mandatory settlement conference, the October 15, 2027 pretrial conference, and the November 15, 2027 trial.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 16(b)(4) good cause turns mainly on the movant's diligence and reasons for seeking more time, and the court treats the standard as non-rigorous.
- Representations that discovery had been served and settlement talks were underway were enough here, and the order describes no contested showing.
- The operative fact discovery cutoff is February 16, 2027, even though the order's discussion refers to February 15.
- The 45-day window to seek a telephonic discovery conference and the bar on discovery motions before that conference continue to apply, and ignoring meet-and-confer duties risks waiver.
- The settlement conference, pretrial conference, and trial dates were not moved.
Why It Matters
This is a routine, unpublished case-management order by a magistrate judge, and it carries no precedential weight. It applies existing Ninth Circuit authority on Rule 16(b)(4) rather than announcing new law, and it resolved an unopposed joint request.
Its practical value is as an illustration for practitioners in the Southern District. Joint requests grounded in diligence and settlement efforts are likely to be granted, but the court paired the relief with a status conference and a fully reset expert and motion schedule while holding the trial-related dates fixed. The order leaves open the merits, any settlement, and any future discovery disputes.