IN RE PFA INSURANCE MARKETING LITIGATION

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 4, 2021
• Docket: 4:18-cv-03771
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 CASE NO. 4:18-cv-03771 YGR 6 IN RE PFA INSURANCE MARKETING AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART 7 LITIGATION AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 8

9 Re: Dkt. No. 211

12 Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ administrative motion to extend the discovery cut-off, 13 which currently is August 6, 2021, for two purposes. Docket No. 211. Defendant Premier 14 Financial Alliance, Inc. opposes the motion. Docket No. 212. For the reasons set forth below, the 15 Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES it in part. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A case “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of 19 the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 20 (9th Cir. 1992). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 21 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the 22 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. (citation omitted). 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 A. Request to extend the discovery cut-off to permit the deposition of Jack Wu 25 Plaintiffs request an extension of the discovery cut-off to allow them to depose Jack Wu, 26 who is an Executive Field Director of PFA, “second only to the CEO,” if Magistrate Judge Kim 27 permits the deposition after the parties present her with a discovery letter brief or Wu is produced 1 after August 6, 2021. Plaintiffs argue that good cause exists for extending the discovery cut-off to 2 allow Wu’s deposition because discovery they took in 2021 shows that Wu qualifies as a PFA 3 “managing agent” under Magistrate Judge Kim’s order of January 21, 2021. In that order, 4 Magistrate Judge Kim denied plaintiffs’ request to depose Wu without prejudice to re-filing the 5 motion in the event that plaintiffs “obtain[ed] more evidence to support their position” that Wu is 6 a “managing agent” of PFA. Docket No. 169 at 2-3. Plaintiffs argue that, based in part on the 7 July 20, 2021, deposition of Wayne Meadows, they now know that Wu is a “managing agent” and 8 that his involvement in the alleged pyramid scheme in this action was significant. 9 Defendant opposes the proposed extension to allow Wu’s deposition on the ground that 10 plaintiffs could have and should have sought the extension at least three-and-a-half months ago. 11 Defendant contends that plaintiffs learned nothing material with respect to Wu’s role at PFA 12 during the Meadows deposition, and that Plaintiffs cite to this deposition only so that it appears 13 that their delay in seeking the extension was justified. Defendant further argues that plaintiffs 14 obtained the information based upon which they will argue to Magistrate Judge Kim that Wu was 15 a “managing agent” of PFA through depositions and document discovery that took place before 16 July 20, 2021. 17 The Court finds that plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the extension of the discovery cut- 18 off to permit them to take Wu’s deposition if Magistrate Judge Kim orders it. The Court is 19 persuaded that plaintiffs learned of material information relevant to Wu’s managing role at the 20 company during the recent Meadows deposition, and that this justifies the timing of their present 21 motion. The Court also finds that there is no indication in the record that defendant would be 22 prejudiced by the extension. Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause exists for extending the 23 discovery cut-off for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to take Wu’s deposition if 24 Magistrate Judge Kim orders it, and it, therefore, GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion as to this issue. 25 B. Request to extend the discovery cut-off to permit plaintiffs to seek improperly withheld documents 26 27 Plaintiffs seek an extension of the discovery cut-off to allow them to request non- ] Magistrate Judge Kim’s order of June 8, 2021, in the related miscellaneous case regarding the 2 || enforcement of a subpoena (Case No. 21-mc-80087-YGR-S). In that order, Magistrate Judge Kim 3 || required the production of a privilege log for documents that are being withheld by Steven Early 4 || on the basis of attorney-client privilege so that she could select documents being withheld for in 5 || camera review. See Docket No. 29 at 4, Case No. 21-mc-80087-YGR-S. Appeals of that order 6 || are now pending before the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs seek the extension of the discovery cut-off so 7 || that, in the event that the Ninth Circuit affirms Magistrate Judge Kim’s order, and she finds that 8 any documents were improperly withheld, then plaintiffs will be able to seek the improperly 9 || withheld documents without any argument by Defendant that the discovery cut-off has passed. E 10 Defendant opposes the extension, arguing that the request is premature and advisory = 11 because it is unclear what the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will be. 6 12 The Court finds that this request is premature and it, therefore, DENIES plaintiffs’ motion as 5 13 || to this issue WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may move to re-open discovery for the limited 14 || purpose of seeking documents improperly withheld by Early in the event that the Ninth Circuit 15 affirms Magistrate Judge Kim’s order and Magistrate Judge Kim finds that documents were 16 || improperly withheld. 17 IT Is SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: August 4, 2021 Dap Hig YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGER 19 NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28