2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 C.W., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01800-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 Nevada Department of Education, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiffs—schoolchildren and their parents—sue the Clark County School District, 12 among other institutional defendants, for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that CCSD has 13 not complied with its obligations to accommodate students with disabilities. Plaintiffs now move 14 for sanctions to address CCSD’s conduct in discovery, or in the alternative, to compel CCSD to 15 comply with its discovery obligations. (ECF No. 111). Plaintiffs also move to extend the joint 16 pretrial order deadline. (ECF No. 132). 17 The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs refer 18 to broad categories of discovery conduct for which they believe CCSD should be sanctioned. But 19 Plaintiffs do not point out which specific rules CCSD has violated, which specific rules or sources 20 provide the Court’s authority to sanction CCSD for its violations, or the specific sanctions 21 Plaintiffs seek to address each asserted violation. So, while Plaintiffs may be frustrated with the 22 way CCSD has engaged in discovery, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffs any of the sanctions they 23 seek except for monetary sanctions related to a noticed deposition for which CCSD failed to 24 produce a witness. The Court will require the parties to meet and confer and attempt to stipulate 25 to the amount of those sanctions. The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the joint pretrial 26 order deadline because they have shown good cause and excusable neglect and because no party 27 has opposed the motion. 1 I. Discussion. 2 A. Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery sanctions. 3 In their motion, Plaintiffs refer broadly and interchangeably to the Court’s inherent 4 authority to issue sanctions and its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Relying 5 on these broad invocations of authority, Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose wide ranging sanctions 6 on CCSD, including precluding CCSD from offering certain defenses, compelling CCSD to 7 “make a full and complete discovery production,” and ordering CCSD to pay certain of Plaintiffs’ 8 witness and attorney’s fees. But Rule 37 and the Court’s inherent authority are not 9 interchangeable. And the various types of sanctions and scenarios under which they are 10 warranted in Rule 37 cannot be invoked in broad terms. As explained in more detail below, 11 Plaintiffs’ failure to identify the precise rule that CCSD violated, the source of the Court’s 12 authority to sanction CCSD for that precise violation, and the precise sanction Plaintiffs seek to 13 remedy each violation is fatal to the Court’s ability to analyze their motion. So, although CCSD’s 14 response is less than fulsome, the Court denies nearly all of Plaintiffs’ sanctions requests on their 15 face, except for one. The Court will proceed through its analysis of Plaintiffs’ motion by 16 addressing CCSD’s alleged discovery violations, going violation by violation. 17 1. CCSD’s late initial disclosures. 18 Plaintiffs argue that CCSD missed the parties’ agreed upon initial disclosure deadline in 19 March of 2025 by about two weeks due to issues with mailing and emailing the documents. (ECF 20 No. 111 at 5-6). Plaintiffs do not identify the rule that they claim CCSD has violated, the rule 21 governing their sanction request related to CCSD’s failure to meet the deadline, or what sanctions 22 they believe to be appropriate to address the failure. This argument is therefore not fully 23 developed. See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013) 24 (explaining that Courts only address well developed arguments) 25 Nonetheless, it appears that CCSD has violated Rule 26(a)(1)(C), which provides that a 26 party must make initial disclosures by either fourteen days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference 27 or by a time set through stipulation or court order. Rule 37(c)(1) is the rule governing this 1 26(a) or (e), “the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a 2 motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” “In 3 addition to or instead of this sanction,” the Court may also order payment of reasonable expenses 4 and fees caused by the failure, inform the jury of the failure, or impose other appropriate 5 sanctions outlined in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). 6 However, Plaintiffs have identified no concrete1 harm arising out of the fact that CCSD 7 was almost two weeks late in providing its initial disclosures. Without more, the Court finds that 8 CCSD’s violation of Rule 26(a) was harmless under Rule 37(c)(1) and declines to issue any of the 9 sanctions outlined in Rule 37(c)(1) or Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi) to address it. The Court therefore 10 denies Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it requests that the Court impose sanctions related to 11 CCSD’s late initial disclosures. 12 2. CCSD’s deficient initial and supplemental disclosures. 13 Plaintiffs assert that CCSD’s initial disclosures were “facially deficient,” and that CCSD’s 14 supplemental disclosures were also “materially deficient.” (ECF No. 111 at 6). Plaintiffs do not 15 explain how or why CCSD’s initial and supplemental disclosures were deficient. They also again 16 fail to identify the rule that CCSD violated, the rule governing their sanction request related to 17 CCSD’s deficient initial and supplemental disclosures, or what sanctions they believe to be 18 appropriate to address the deficiencies. This issue is therefore not fully developed. See Kor 19 Media Grp, 294 F.R.D. at 582 n.3. 20 Without more, even if the Court were to consider the issue under the appropriate rules— 21 Rule 26(a) and (e) and Rule 37(c)(1)—the Court cannot conduct an adequate analysis. The Court 22 therefore denies Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it requests that the Court impose sanctions related 23 to CCSD’s deficient initial and supplemental disclosures. 24 25 1 Plaintiffs do refer generally to the harm that any delay in this litigation causes given the alleged 26 ongoing failures of CCSD to provide appropriate education to its students. While the Court 27 recognizes the importance of the issues alleged in this litigation, it cannot find that a delay of resolution on the merits in this case is, alone, a sufficiently concrete harm to warrant the extreme 3. CCSD’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ March 7, 2025, requests for 1 production. 2 3 Plaintiffs argue that CCSD has “failed to produce documents in response to document 4 requests that it has possessed since March 7, 2025…” (ECF No. 111 at 7). Plaintiffs claim that 5 CCSD waited until August 1, 2025, to ask Plaintiffs to provide “search terms for electronic 6 discovery,” presumably in aid of CCSD’s responses to some or all of the requests for production 7 at issue. (Id.). In a series of exchanges spanning August 1, 2025, until September 30, 2025, 8 which exchanges the Court will not detail here, Plaintiffs claim that they worked diligently with 9 CCSD to narrow the search terms and universe of documents. (Id. at 7-9). Plaintiffs assert that 10 CCSD delayed the process, misrepresented its capabilities in searching and gathering the 11 documents, and ultimately provided a spreadsheet of search term “hits” that was unhelpful to 12 determining which documents might be responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests for production. (Id.). 13 As before, Plaintiffs fail to identify the rule that CCSD violated, the rule governing their 14 sanction request related to CCSD’s failures to respond to requests for production, or what 15 sanctions they believe to be appropriate to address those failures.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 C.W., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01800-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 Nevada Department of Education, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiffs—schoolchildren and their parents—sue the Clark County School District, 12 among other institutional defendants, for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that CCSD has 13 not complied with its obligations to accommodate students with disabilities. Plaintiffs now move 14 for sanctions to address CCSD’s conduct in discovery, or in the alternative, to compel CCSD to 15 comply with its discovery obligations. (ECF No. 111). Plaintiffs also move to extend the joint 16 pretrial order deadline. (ECF No. 132). 17 The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs refer 18 to broad categories of discovery conduct for which they believe CCSD should be sanctioned. But 19 Plaintiffs do not point out which specific rules CCSD has violated, which specific rules or sources 20 provide the Court’s authority to sanction CCSD for its violations, or the specific sanctions 21 Plaintiffs seek to address each asserted violation. So, while Plaintiffs may be frustrated with the 22 way CCSD has engaged in discovery, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffs any of the sanctions they 23 seek except for monetary sanctions related to a noticed deposition for which CCSD failed to 24 produce a witness. The Court will require the parties to meet and confer and attempt to stipulate 25 to the amount of those sanctions. The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the joint pretrial 26 order deadline because they have shown good cause and excusable neglect and because no party 27 has opposed the motion. 1 I. Discussion. 2 A. Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery sanctions. 3 In their motion, Plaintiffs refer broadly and interchangeably to the Court’s inherent 4 authority to issue sanctions and its authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Relying 5 on these broad invocations of authority, Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose wide ranging sanctions 6 on CCSD, including precluding CCSD from offering certain defenses, compelling CCSD to 7 “make a full and complete discovery production,” and ordering CCSD to pay certain of Plaintiffs’ 8 witness and attorney’s fees. But Rule 37 and the Court’s inherent authority are not 9 interchangeable. And the various types of sanctions and scenarios under which they are 10 warranted in Rule 37 cannot be invoked in broad terms. As explained in more detail below, 11 Plaintiffs’ failure to identify the precise rule that CCSD violated, the source of the Court’s 12 authority to sanction CCSD for that precise violation, and the precise sanction Plaintiffs seek to 13 remedy each violation is fatal to the Court’s ability to analyze their motion. So, although CCSD’s 14 response is less than fulsome, the Court denies nearly all of Plaintiffs’ sanctions requests on their 15 face, except for one. The Court will proceed through its analysis of Plaintiffs’ motion by 16 addressing CCSD’s alleged discovery violations, going violation by violation. 17 1. CCSD’s late initial disclosures. 18 Plaintiffs argue that CCSD missed the parties’ agreed upon initial disclosure deadline in 19 March of 2025 by about two weeks due to issues with mailing and emailing the documents. (ECF 20 No. 111 at 5-6). Plaintiffs do not identify the rule that they claim CCSD has violated, the rule 21 governing their sanction request related to CCSD’s failure to meet the deadline, or what sanctions 22 they believe to be appropriate to address the failure. This argument is therefore not fully 23 developed. See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013) 24 (explaining that Courts only address well developed arguments) 25 Nonetheless, it appears that CCSD has violated Rule 26(a)(1)(C), which provides that a 26 party must make initial disclosures by either fourteen days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference 27 or by a time set through stipulation or court order. Rule 37(c)(1) is the rule governing this 1 26(a) or (e), “the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a 2 motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” “In 3 addition to or instead of this sanction,” the Court may also order payment of reasonable expenses 4 and fees caused by the failure, inform the jury of the failure, or impose other appropriate 5 sanctions outlined in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). 6 However, Plaintiffs have identified no concrete1 harm arising out of the fact that CCSD 7 was almost two weeks late in providing its initial disclosures. Without more, the Court finds that 8 CCSD’s violation of Rule 26(a) was harmless under Rule 37(c)(1) and declines to issue any of the 9 sanctions outlined in Rule 37(c)(1) or Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi) to address it. The Court therefore 10 denies Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it requests that the Court impose sanctions related to 11 CCSD’s late initial disclosures. 12 2. CCSD’s deficient initial and supplemental disclosures. 13 Plaintiffs assert that CCSD’s initial disclosures were “facially deficient,” and that CCSD’s 14 supplemental disclosures were also “materially deficient.” (ECF No. 111 at 6). Plaintiffs do not 15 explain how or why CCSD’s initial and supplemental disclosures were deficient. They also again 16 fail to identify the rule that CCSD violated, the rule governing their sanction request related to 17 CCSD’s deficient initial and supplemental disclosures, or what sanctions they believe to be 18 appropriate to address the deficiencies. This issue is therefore not fully developed. See Kor 19 Media Grp, 294 F.R.D. at 582 n.3. 20 Without more, even if the Court were to consider the issue under the appropriate rules— 21 Rule 26(a) and (e) and Rule 37(c)(1)—the Court cannot conduct an adequate analysis. The Court 22 therefore denies Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it requests that the Court impose sanctions related 23 to CCSD’s deficient initial and supplemental disclosures. 24 25 1 Plaintiffs do refer generally to the harm that any delay in this litigation causes given the alleged 26 ongoing failures of CCSD to provide appropriate education to its students. While the Court 27 recognizes the importance of the issues alleged in this litigation, it cannot find that a delay of resolution on the merits in this case is, alone, a sufficiently concrete harm to warrant the extreme 3. CCSD’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ March 7, 2025, requests for 1 production. 2 3 Plaintiffs argue that CCSD has “failed to produce documents in response to document 4 requests that it has possessed since March 7, 2025…” (ECF No. 111 at 7). Plaintiffs claim that 5 CCSD waited until August 1, 2025, to ask Plaintiffs to provide “search terms for electronic 6 discovery,” presumably in aid of CCSD’s responses to some or all of the requests for production 7 at issue. (Id.). In a series of exchanges spanning August 1, 2025, until September 30, 2025, 8 which exchanges the Court will not detail here, Plaintiffs claim that they worked diligently with 9 CCSD to narrow the search terms and universe of documents. (Id. at 7-9). Plaintiffs assert that 10 CCSD delayed the process, misrepresented its capabilities in searching and gathering the 11 documents, and ultimately provided a spreadsheet of search term “hits” that was unhelpful to 12 determining which documents might be responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests for production. (Id.). 13 As before, Plaintiffs fail to identify the rule that CCSD violated, the rule governing their 14 sanction request related to CCSD’s failures to respond to requests for production, or what 15 sanctions they believe to be appropriate to address those failures. Without this information, the 16 Court cannot conduct a sanction, or even a motion to compel, analysis. 17 First, it does not appear from Plaintiffs’ motion that they have previously moved to 18 compel CCSD to provide the documents at issue. This information is critical to the Court’s 19 analysis because a motion to compel is a prerequisite to the Court considering and imposing 20 sanctions under Rule 37(a)(5) or 37(b)(2). 21 Second, even if the Court considered CCSD to have spoliated the responsive documents, 22 as Plaintiffs ask it to do,2 Plaintiffs do not provide sufficient information for the Court to conduct 23 a spoliation analysis. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs do not indicate whether they are seeking 24 spoliation sanctions under either the Court’s inherent authority or Rule 37(e). While the Court 25 has inherent discretionary power to sanction abusive litigation conduct, see Leon v. IDX Sys. 26
27 2 Plaintiffs provide no authority for their proposition that the Court can consider CCSD to have 1 Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006), the 2015 Amendment to Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 37(e) forecloses the Court’s ability to impose sanctions for destruction of electronically 3 stored information based on the Court’s inherent authority, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e), Advisory 4 Committee Notes (2015) and Gregory v. State of Montana, 118 F.4th 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2024). 5 Plaintiffs’ failure to address this distinction is fatal to their request for spoliation sanctions 6 because both the sanctions that the Court may impose and the analysis the Court must conduct to 7 impose those sanctions vary depending on whether the Court is employing its inherent authority 8 or Rule 37(e). Compare Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-46 (1991) (explaining that a 9 Court’s inherent authority to sanction “extends to a full range of litigation abuses” and includes a 10 wide range of sanctions) with Gregory, 118 F.4th at 1078-79 (explaining that the Court must 11 make specified findings before imposing a sanction and providing specific forms of sanctions 12 dependent on the intent of the spoliating party) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). 13 Third, even if the Court construed Plaintiffs’ motion as one to compel the documents at 14 issue (Plaintiffs request this relief in the alternative), Plaintiffs do not provide the Court sufficient 15 information to analyze their request. Plaintiffs do not “set forth in full the text of the discovery 16 originally sought and any response to it,” as required by Local Rule 26-6. So, the Court cannot 17 determine if CCSD failed to respond to an entire set of requests for production, failed to respond 18 to individual requests, or provided incomplete or evasive responses. It is therefore impossible for 19 the Court to determine if CCSD has failed to produce documents under Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) or 20 has provided evasive or incomplete responses under Rule 37(a)(4). The Court therefore denies 21 Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it requests that the Court impose sanctions related to CCSD’s 22 responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for production and denies Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it asks 23 the Court to compel these responses. 24 4. CCSD’s failure to produce Daniel Ebihara at Plaintiffs’ May 29, 2025, deposition. 25 26 Plaintiffs assert that, after CCSD identified Daniel Ebihara as the individual who helped 27 CCSD respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, Plaintiffs attempted to get CCSD to provide them 1 and so, Plaintiffs unilaterally noticed Ebihara’s deposition for May 29, 2025. (Id.). When CCSD 2 did not respond to the notice, Plaintiffs’ counsel flew to Las Vegas to conduct the deposition. 3 (Id.). However, the day before the deposition, CCSD’s counsel asserted that they did not 4 represent Ebihara and that Ebihara would not be appearing for the noticed deposition. (Id.). 5 Plaintiffs have already moved to compel Ebihara’s deposition (which motion the Court 6 granted) and for sanctions related to Ebihara’s failure to appear at the May 29, 2025, noticed 7 deposition date (which motion the Court denied). (ECF No. 92). The Court will not revisit 8 Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions related to this deposition. 9 5. CCSD’s failure to produce “specifically identified documents.” 10 Plaintiffs argue that, in late August of 2025, CCSD “promised to produce specifically- 11 identified documents within 24-48 hours of request.” (ECF No. 111 at 10). Plaintiffs assert that 12 CCSD has failed to keep this promise and produce requested documents, even after Plaintiffs 13 “identif[ied] the requests for production to which the specifically identified documents were 14 responsive,” as requested by CCSD. (Id.). 15 However, as before, Plaintiffs fail to identify the rule that CCSD violated, the rule 16 governing their sanction request related to CCSD’s failure to produce the “specifically identified 17 documents” at issue, or what sanctions they believe appropriate to address this failure. And, as 18 before, without this information, the Court cannot conduct a sanction or a motion to compel 19 analysis. 20 First, Plaintiffs do not claim to have previously moved to compel CCSD to provide the 21 documents at issue, preventing the Court from considering and imposing sanctions under Rule 22 37(a)(5) or 37(b)(2). Second, even if the Court considered CCSD to have spoliated the 23 responsive documents, Plaintiffs do not provide sufficient information for the Court to conduct a 24 spoliation analysis. Third, even if the Court considered the motion as one to compel the 25 documents at issue, Plaintiffs do not provide sufficient information for the Court to analyze their 26 request because they do not “set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and any 27 response to it,” as required by Local Rule 26-6. The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ motion to 1 “specifically identified documents” and denies Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it asks the Court to 2 compel these responses. 3 6. CCSD’s failure to attend a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition noticed for October 7, 2025. 4 5 Plaintiffs also argue that on September 30, 2025, after not receiving responses from 6 CCSD’s counsel regarding scheduling CCSD’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness depositions, Plaintiffs 7 served a deposition notice on CCSD for depositions on October 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15. (ECF 8 No. 111 at 10). Still having not heard back from CCSD’s counsel on the issue, Plaintiffs’ counsel 9 flew out to Las Vegas. (Id. at 11). On October 6, 2025, CCSD’s counsel explained that she did 10 not believe that the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions that Plaintiffs had noticed would be taking place but 11 that she would know more on October 7th. (Id.). CCSD’s counsel did not contact Plaintiffs’ 12 counsel on October 7th and Plaintiffs’ counsel incurred charges for the court reporter on October 13 7th and for traveling to Las Vegas only to learn that the depositions would not move forward. 14 (ECF No. 111-1 at 14). CCSD did not address the October 7th deposition or the depositions 15 noticed for October 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 in response. (ECF No. 128). Plaintiffs point this out 16 in reply. (ECF No. 129 at 11-12). 17 Although Plaintiffs do not identify the rule that CCSD violated or the rule governing their 18 sanction request, they do identify the monetary sanctions they believe appropriate to address 19 CCSD’s failure to produce a 30(b)(6) witness for the noticed October 7, 2026, deposition. 20 Plaintiffs assert that they provided notice of the deposition as required under Rule 30(b)(1) to take 21 place on October 7, 2026. While CCSD disputed that fact at a hearing, 3 CCSD has not addressed 22 it as raised in Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. And Plaintiffs assert—and CCSD does not 23 dispute—that CCSD’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness failed to attend the deposition, warranting sanctions 24 under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i). Rule 37(d)(3) outlines the sanctions available to address a party 25 failing to attend its deposition, which sanctions include requiring the party or the attorney 26 27 3 The Court held a hearing on a separate issue on October 6, 2026, and at that hearing, counsel for CCSD represented that she had never received the notices of deposition for October 7, 8, 9, 10, 1 advising that party, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by 2 the failure unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of 3 expenses unjust. CCSD has offered no reason—other than its counsel’s brief statement during the 4 October 6, 2025, hearing that CCSD did not receive the notices—why the failure was 5 substantially justified or an award of expenses would be unjust. And given Plaintiffs’ explanation 6 that their counsel emailed, called, and texted CCSD’s counsel multiple times regarding the 7 depositions, the Court does not find CCSD’s counsel’s statement at the October 6, 2025, hearing 8 to demonstrate substantial justification. 9 The Court will therefore grant Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions as it relates to the October 10 7, 2025, deposition. The Court will further order the parties to meet and confer and attempt to 11 stipulate to the amount of these monetary sanctions. If the parties cannot agree, Plaintiffs may 12 move for the Court to set the amount of these sanctions. 13 B. Plaintiffs’ motion to extend. 14 Plaintiffs’ move to extend the joint pretrial order deadline to April 30, 2026, (ECF No. 15 132). The parties previously stipulated to extend this deadline, which stipulation the parties filed 16 on the joint pretrial order deadline of December 15, 2025. (ECF No. 130). However, the Court 17 denied that stipulation because it also sought to extend discovery and the dispositive motions 18 deadline, both of which deadlines had already passed, without showing excusable neglect. (ECF 19 No. 131). Plaintiffs explain that they attempted to stipulate with the Defendants regarding a 20 renewed request to extend, but that they could not obtain agreement from Defendants in a timely 21 fashion. Plaintiffs also assert that their requested extension is necessary so that they could obtain 22 a ruling on their motion for sanctions. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown good cause and 23 excusable neglect to extend the joint pretrial order deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); see LR 24 26-3. And no party has responded to the motion, constituting their consent to the Court granting 25 it. See LR 7-2(d). Given the fast-approaching deadline proposed by Plaintiffs, the Court will 26 further sua sponte extend the joint pretrial order deadline by thirty days from the date of this 27 order. ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 111) is 2 || granted in part and denied in part. It is granted in part regarding Plaintiffs’ request for 3 || sanctions related to CCSD’s failure to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness at the deposition noticed 4 || for October 7, 2025. CCSD and Plaintiffs must meet and confer and attempt to stipulate to the 5 || amount of these monetary sanctions. Ifthe parties cannot agree, Plaintiffs may move for the 6 || Court to set the amount of these sanctions. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is denied in all other 7 || respects. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the joint pretrial order 9 || deadline (ECF No. 132) is granted. The Court will, however, sua sponte extend the joint pretrial 10 || order deadline to May 18, 2026. 1] 12 DATED: April 17, 2026, VY i ~ QAM A 13 >A DANIEL J. ALBREGTS | 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28