Jeannete Lizarraga v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEANNETE LIZARRAGA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01729-JAH-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RESOLVING JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION 13 v. OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE AND 14 JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AMERICA, LLC, TO COMPEL 15

Defendant. 16 [ECF No. 15]

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jeanette Lizarraga (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Jaguar 25 Land Rover North America, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Joint Motion for Determination of 26 Discovery Dispute. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court requiring 27 Defendant to produce documents in response to Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 31. 28 Id. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff filed this action on June 3, 2025, in San Diego Superior Court,1 alleging 3 that Defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. ECF No. 1-2. In her 4 complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a 2024 Jaguar F-PACE vehicle 5 manufactured and distributed by Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, which was 6 covered by an express written warranty covering the utility and performance of the vehicle 7 for a period of time. Id. at ¶ 8; see id. at ¶ 9 (5-year/60,000 mile express bumper to bumper 8 warranty and 5-year/60,000 mile powertrain warranty). Plaintiff alleges that she 9 experienced numerous defects with the vehicle during the warranty period. Id. at ¶ 10. She 10 claims that even though Defendant was unable to adequately repair the defects, it failed to 11 replace the vehicle or buy it back. Id. at ¶¶ 29–30. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s actions 12 were willful and seeks civil penalties of two times the amount of actual damages. Id. 13 at ¶¶ 35, 62. 14 On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff served RFPs on Defendant. ECF No. 15-2. 15 Specifically, RFP No. 31 seeks: 16 All documents that refer to, reflect, or relate to any Field Service Action issued, or in the process of being issued, in response to complaints 17 experienced by Plaintiff as described in Defendant’s warranty 18 history/summary and within the line items of the repair orders created at Defendant’s authorized repair facility. 19 20 Id. at 10 (emphasis omitted). On December 22, 2025, Defendant served its response and 21 objections to RFP No. 31. ECF No. 15-3 at 17–18. Defendant objected to the request on 22 the basis that it sought trade secrets or confidential business information and asserted that 23 the documents were not in Defendant’s possession. Id. Defendant, however, agreed to 24 permit inspection in lieu of production2 of: 25 26 27 1 Defendant removed this matter on July 7, 2025. ECF No. 1. 28 2 See FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(B). 1 the list of Technical Bulletins and Field Actions available for the year/make/model of the subject vehicle, as well as any Field Actions 2 (including Recalls, if any) and Technical Bulletins identified in the subject 3 vehicle’s repair/service history during Plaintiff’s ownership. JLRNA further refers Plaintiff to http://topix.landrover.jlrext.com/topix/vehicle/lookupForm 4 where Plaintiff can access available Field Actions, Recalls, Technical 5 Bulletins and other technical materials. Discovery is continuing, and JLRNA reserves the right to supplement its response based upon further investigation. 6 7 Id. at 18. 8 The Court held a discovery conference on February 2, 2026, and discussed the 9 parties’ disputes regarding three of Plaintiff’s RFPs, including No. 31. ECF No. 11. The 10 Court provided guidance to the parties regarding their disputes to facilitate further meet 11 and confer efforts. Id. On February 11, 2026, the parties informed the Court that they 12 resolved some of their disputes, but that their disputes remained as to RFP No. 31. Email 13 to Chambers (Feb. 11, 2026, at 3:44 PM). The Court held a second discovery conference 14 in the matter on February 17, 2026. ECF No. 13. The Court found it appropriate to issue a 15 briefing schedule. ECF No. 14. The parties timely filed their Joint Motion for 16 Determination of Discovery Dispute. ECF No. 15. This order follows. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit parties to obtain nonprivileged 19 information if it is (1) relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and (2) proportional to the 20 needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). Courts have broad discretion to determine 21 relevance for discovery purposes. Doherty v. Comenity Capital Bank, No. 16cv1321-H- 22 BGS, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 23 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Youngevity Int’l, Inc. v. Smith, No. 16cv704-BTM- 24 JLB, 2017 WL 2692928, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2017). The relevance standard is 25 commonly recognized as one that is necessarily broad in scope in order “to encompass any 26 matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any 27 issue that is or may be in the case.” Doherty, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2 (internal quotation 28 1 omitted). Regardless of its broad nature, however, relevance is not without “ultimate and 2 necessary boundaries.” Doherty, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2. 3 Information must also be “proportional to the needs of the case” to fall within the 4 scope of permissible discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). When analyzing the 5 proportionality of a party’s discovery requests, a court should consider the importance of 6 the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 7 the information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 8 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 9 benefit. Id. “The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) emphasize the need to impose 10 ‘reasonable limits on discovery through increased reliance on the common-sense concept 11 of proportionality.’” Roberts v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 312 F.R.D. 594, 603 (D. Nev. 2016) 12 (internal citation omitted). 13 The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 14 satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26. Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, No. 17-cv- 15 01243-JAH-JLB, 2019 WL 12044514, at *3 (S.D. Cal. March 26, 2019); see Bryant v. 16 Ochoa, No. 07-cv-200-TM-PCL, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009). 17 “Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery 18 should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.” 19 PetConnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas, No. 20-cv-0527-RSH-DEB, 2026 WL 1138349, at *1 20 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026) (internal quotations omitted). Additionally, beyond the parties’ 21 respective burdens, a “court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery … if it 22 determines that: … the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 23 26(b)(1),” i.e., that it is not relevant and proportional. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) 24 (emphasis added). 25 III. NARROWING OF THE REQUEST AT ISSUE 26 As a threshold matter, the Court will assess whether the instant motion and order 27 will refer to RFP No. 31 as served, or as narrowed by Plaintiff. In the instant motion, 28 Plaintiff asserts that she “limited the scope of the discovery sought in Request for 1 Production No. 31 to EPQRs concerning the same defects experienced in Plaintiff’s vehicle 2 in other vehicles of the same year, make, and model.” ECF No. 15 at 11;3 ECF No. 15-1 3 at 3. However, there is no evidence presented before the Court that Plaintiff served an 4 amended discovery request. As such, the Court declines to accept Plaintiff’s post hac 5 attempt at amendment and will address the discovery request as served. See Schessler v. 6 Bass, No. 1:23-cv-01012-BAM-PC, 2025 WL 2207246, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2025) 7 (collecting cases and explaining that “Plaintiff may not modify his original request for 8 production using a motion to compel. … Plaintiff’s attempt to provide a narrower or 9 clarifying definition of his original request, or to request more particular documents … 10 constitute an improper amendment to Plaintiff’s discovery request”); Madden v. Hicks, No. 11 1:18-cv-00255-KES-BA, 2024 WL 4826720, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2024) (collecting 12 cases and explaining that, “[d]espite Plaintiffs’ attempts to provide additional search terms 13 or to narrow the time frame of their requests, Plaintiffs may not modify their original 14 requests for production using a motion to compel”); Hisle v. Conanon, Case No. 1:17-cv- 15 01400-LJO-SAB, 2018 WL 4444959, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018) (denying motion to 16 compel, noting that narrowing a discovery request must be done by way of a new request, 17 not a motion to compel). 18 IV. RELEVANCE 19 Plaintiff seeks documents regarding Field Service Actions in response to the same 20 complaints experienced by Plaintiff or same repairs made to Plaintiff’s vehicle. ECF 21 No. 15-2 at 10. Plaintiff argues that these documents are relevant to her allegations of 22 willfulness. ECF No. 15 at 4. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that consumer complaint data 23 could show Defendant’s “prior knowledge of the systemic defects/nonconformities found 24 in the Subject Vehicle[.]” Id. at 7; see ECF No. 15-1 at 3 (“the RFPs seek information and 25 26 27 3 Due to discrepancies between original and imprinted page numbers, page numbers for docketed materials cited in this Order refer to those imprinted by the court’s electronic case 28 1 documents that are probative of [Defendant’s]’s prior knowledge of the electrical, 2 transmission, emission, and engine system defects found within the Subject Vehicle”). 3 Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s knowledge and awareness of the defects are “directly 4 relevant” because a finding of willfulness “depends on … what Defendant knew, when it 5 knew it, and whether it failed to act despite that knowledge.” ECF No. 15-1 at 3. 6 Though discovery relating to vehicles of the same year, make, and model may be 7 relevant,4 Plaintiff’s discovery request does not pose these limitations and encompasses 8 any vehicle manufactured by Defendant. Cases cited by Plaintiffs do not support the 9 assertion that unrelated vehicles’ repairs could be relevant to a willfulness analysis, nor 10 does Plaintiff make such an assertion. See ECF No. 15-1 at 3–4 (collecting cases5 where 11 requests regarding vehicles of same year, make, and model were found to be relevant). 12 Thus, the Court finds that RFP No. 31 has limited relevancy. 13 V. PROPORTIONALITY 14 Even if RFP No. 31 has limited relevancy, the Court nonetheless finds that it is not 15 proportional to the needs of the case. As an initial matter, though Plaintiff cites numerous 16

17 4 See Siyu Dong v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 19-cv-2202-DMS-BGS, 2020 WL 5891525, 18 at *8 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2020) (permitting discovery regarding “other BMW vehicles of the same make, model and year that suffered from repairs to the high-pressure fuel pump” 19 because “the relevance of same defects in other same BMW vehicles goes to the issue of 20 willfulness under the Song-Beverly Act. The relevancy of the same nonconformities in other like vehicles goes to notice to the defendant that, given a fundamental defect in the 21 same model vehicles as the subject vehicle, the repairs did not fix the vehicle”); Zargarian 22 v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. CV-18-4857-RSWL-PLAx, 2019 WL 6111732, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2019) (“in light of the willfulness analysis that will be required pursuant to 23 the Song-Beverly Act, … limited discovery … [regarding] plaintiff’s vehicle and vehicles 24 of the same make, model, and year as plaintiff's vehicle with the N63 engine, and with the same ‘engine defects’ or symptoms experienced by plaintiff as reflected in his vehicle's 25 repair history, are relevant”). 26 5 Of note, the court in Zargarian found that discovery requests not limited to vehicles of 27 the same year, make, and model were not relevant and did not permit such sweeping 28 discovery. 2019 WL 6111732, at *8. 1 cases from California state courts to support her contention that RFP No. 31 is relevant and 2 proportional, the Court does not find these authorities persuasive. See ECF No. 15 at 3–4 3 (collecting cases purporting to support discoverability). Those state courts were 4 “concerned only with whether the proposed discovery was relevant; they were not bound 5 to consider the federal courts’ new proportionality guidance in Rule 26, which was 6 expressly designed to ‘encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and 7 discouraging discovery overuse.’” Koeper v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 17-cv-6154-VAP- 8 JPRx, 2018 WL 6016915, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 9 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment). Additionally, the California cases cited 10 are distinguishable for other reasons. Compare ECF No. 15 at 4 (citing Donlen6 and 11 Doppes7 as authorities supporting discoverability of RFP No. 31) with Velasco v. 12 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-07880-MWF (SKx), 2019 WL 6825744, at *1 13 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2019) (“Doppes never addressed the underlying merits of a discovery 14 request like Plaintiff’s, [] and Donlen predates the December 2015 revisions to the Federal 15 Rules of Civil Procedure. So neither Doppes nor Donlen are controlling here since federal 16 discovery practice must also meet the post-2015 federal proportionality requirements of 17 Rule 26”) (internal quotation omitted) and Koeper, 2018 WL 6016915, at *2 18 (distinguishing Donlen and Doppes in discovery order regarding RFP relating to vehicles 19 of same year, make, and model). 20 As to the applicable factors, first, though the information sought has limited 21 relevance, the Court is not persuaded that it is of great importance to the issues at stake in 22 this action. Koeper, 2018 WL 6016915, at *1 (“The importance of the issue at stake here 23 is also not great, other than to Plaintiff himself [as] this lawsuit involves a single car.”); see 24 also Kooner v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 17-cv-1940 W-BGS, 2018 WL 3956021, at *3 25 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018) (“the case law’s primary focus on the issue of willfulness is not 26 27 6 Donlen v. Ford Motor Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th 138 (2013). 28 7 1 on other vehicles, rather on a defendant’s conduct towards the subject vehicle. Therefore, 2 the court gives little weight to the importance of this discovery [repurchases of the same 3 make, model and year vehicles as plaintiff’s] to proving willfulness”). 4 Further, the amount in controversy in this matter is below $250,000. ECF No. 1-2 at 5 ¶¶ 8, 62 (Plaintiff purchased the vehicle for $81,636.80 and seeks civil penalties of up to 6 two times the amount of actual damages); see Velasco, 2019 WL 6825744, at *1 (“The 7 alleged amount in controversy[,] $349,486.08 plus attorneys’ fees[,] is not enough by 8 itself” to show proportionality of RFP seeking documents relating to vehicles of the same 9 year, make, and model); Putman v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. CV-17-3485-JAK-KSx, 10 2018 WL 6137160, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2018) (“the amount at issue [$300,000.00, 11 including civil penalties for willfulness] concerning Plaintiffs’ single vehicle does not 12 warrant requiring Defendant to conduct a search of nationwide or even statewide records 13 for thousands of other vehicles when the central information necessary to prove or disprove 14 Plaintiffs’ claims under the Song-Beverly Act pertains to the service records and history of 15 Plaintiffs’ vehicle”). 16 Also, “[a]lthough Defendant clearly has somewhat greater access to the information 17 sought than does Plaintiff and is not without substantial resources, gathering it would 18 nonetheless require it to undertake significant effort.” Koeper, 2018 WL 6016915, at *1 19 (finding similar RFP not proportional); see ECF No. 15 at 9 (“Compelling [Defendant] to 20 search for, review, and produce EPQRs for ‘similar concerns’ would force [Defendant] to 21 manually review tens of thousands of unrelated files to ascertain if a technical failure in an 22 unrelated vehicle somehow mirrors the subjective complaint of the Plaintiff”). Plaintiff, 23 moreover, has access to other evidence she could use to show willfulness, such as the 24 “Technical Bulletins and Field Actions available for the year/make/model of the subject 25 vehicle” that Defendant produced for inspection. ECF No. 15-3 at 18; see Kooner, 2018 26 WL 3956021, at *3 (“Plaintiff has access to more relevant evidence to the issue of notice 27 to Defendant than RFP No. 47, namely service bulletins produced by the Defendant of 28 widespread defects and non-conformities in all 2013 BMW 750is. This is the type of 1 evidence which provides a reasonable inference that the Defendant was on notice that the 2 subject vehicle was not repaired, and failure to repurchase was willful”). 3 As such, the Court finds Plaintiff did not meet her burden to show that that RFP 4 No. 31, as written or as narrowed, is proportional8 to the needs of the case. 5 VI. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 7 ECF No. 15. 8 VI. AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 9 During the discovery conferences in the matter, the Court determined that 10 depositions should take place after the dispute as to RFP No. 31 was resolved. ECF No. 14 11 at 2 (setting briefing schedule and noting that, “[u]pon resolution of the discovery motion, 12 the Court will adjust the March 13, 2026, fact discovery deadline to permit the completion 13 of the depositions”). The Court required the parties to submit a joint statement regarding 14 which depositions still needed to be taken. Id.; see Email to Chambers (Mar. 4, 2026, at 15 1:12 PM). Upon review of the parties’ submission,9 the Court sua sponte issues the 16 following First Amended Scheduling Order: 17 1. The parties must complete all fact discovery by July 31, 2026. 18 2. The parties must designate their respective experts in writing by 19 August 31, 2026. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 20 evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This 21 requirement is not limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts 22 must be by September 30, 2026. Written designations must include the name, address and 23

24 8 As the Court has found that RFP No. 31 is not proportional, the Court need not reach 25 Defendant’s other objections regarding confidential business information or third-party possession of the documents. 26 27 9 The parties listed the outstanding depositions as: (1) Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness; (2) Jaguar Land Rover San Diego’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness; (3) Plaintiff; (4) Defendant’s 28 1 telephone number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is 2 expected to provide. The list must also include the normal rates the expert charges for 3 deposition and trial testimony. 4 3. By August 31, 2026, each party must comply with the disclosure provisions 5 in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 6 requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 7 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 8 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 9 make these disclosures will not be permitted to use evidence or testimony not disclosed 10 at any hearing or at the time of trial, absent substantial justification. Additionally, 11 the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 37(c). 13 4. Any party must supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 14 evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) by September 30, 2026. 15 5. All parties must complete all expert discovery by October 30, 2026. The 16 parties must comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 17 discovery. 18 6. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the Court 19 may result in the sanctions provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, including 20 prohibition on the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 21 7. All other pretrial motions must be filed by December 18, 2026. Counsel for 22 the moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who 23 will hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and 24 the hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. 25 Failure to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 26 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 27 district judge. 28 / / 1 8. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on March 1, 2027 at 2 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard via videoconference. 3 a. The Court requires the personal attendance of all named parties, party 4 representatives with full10 settlement authority, including claims adjusters 5 for insured defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for the 6 litigation at the conference. 7 b. Plaintiff must serve on Defendants a written settlement proposal, which 8 must include a specific demand amount, no later than February 8, 2027. 9 The defendant must respond to the plaintiff in writing with a specific offer 10 amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties should not 11 file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties 12 must include their written settlement proposals in their respective 13 Settlement Conference Statements to the Court. 14 c. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person, via 15 videoconference, or by phone no later than February 16, 2027. 16 d. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will 17 be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than 18 February 22, 2027. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email 19 to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of the 20 Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s 21

22 10 The Court reminds the parties that parties and party representatives with full and 23 complete authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present at the MSC. Full authority to settle means that a person must be authorized to fully explore settlement 24 options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman 25 Brewing Co., Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a 26 party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or 27 sum certain authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595– 97 (8th Cir. 2001). A person who needs to call another person who is not present at the 28 1 Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located on the court website at 2 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Manda 3 tory%20Settlement%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). 4 e. Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter 5 for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later 6 February 22, 2027. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 7 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a party choose to 8 prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must 9 comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference 10 Rules. 11 f. No later than February 22, 2027, each party must submit to the Court via 12 email (not filed) (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, titles, 13 and email addresses of all attendees, as well as a cell phone number for 14 each party’s preferred point of contact. Court staff will then send out the 15 Zoom invitation to all attendees. 16 g. All participants shall display the same level of professionalism during the 17 Settlement Conference and be prepared to devote their full attention to the 18 Settlement Conference as if they were attending in person, i.e., cannot be 19 driving or in a car while speaking to the Court. Because Zoom may quickly 20 deplete the battery of a participant’s device, each participant should ensure 21 that their device is plugged in or that a charging cable is readily available 22 during the video conference. Counsel are advised that although the 23 Settlement Conference will take place on Zoom, all participants shall 24 appear and conduct themselves as if it is proceeding in a courtroom, i.e., 25 all participants must dress in appropriate courtroom attire. 26 h. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers 27 Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate 28 Judge Allison H. Goddard. 1 9. Despite the requirements of Local Rule 16.1(f)(2), neither party is required to 2 file a Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law at any time. The parties shall instead 3 focus their efforts on drafting and submitting a proposed pretrial order by the time and date 4 specified by Local Rule 16.1(f)(6)(b). 5 10. Counsel must comply with the pretrial disclosure requirements of Federal 6 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) by March 31, 2027. Failure to comply with these 7 disclosure requirements may result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Federal 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 37. 9 11. Counsel must meet and take the action required by Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) 10 by April 7, 2027. At this meeting, counsel must discuss and attempt to enter into 11 stipulations and agreements simplifying the triable issues. Counsel must exchange copies 12 and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. The exhibits must 13 be prepared in accordance with Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel must note any 14 objections they have to any other parties’ pretrial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 26(a)(3). Counsel must cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial 16 conference order. 17 12. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 18 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By April 14, 2027, 19 plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed pretrial order for 20 review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly with plaintiff’s 21 counsel concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order. Both parties 22 must promptly attempt to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the order. 23 13. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 24 other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served, and 25 lodged with the assigned district judge by April 21, 2027 in the form prescribed in and in 26 compliance with Civil Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 27 14. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 28 John A. Houston on April 28, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. l 15. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned district judge 2 ||and magistrate judge. 3 16. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 4 || within 30 days of verdict in the case. 5 17. The Court will not modify the dates and times set forth in this order except 6 || for good cause shown. 7 18. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(h), briefs or memoranda in support of or in 8 || opposition to any pending motion must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without 9 || leave of a district court judge. Reply memorandum must not exceed ten (10) pages without 10 |/ leave of a district court judge. Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length 11 have a table of contents and a table of authorities cited. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: June 26, 2026 4 _ArwioonH. Kovolar Honorable Allison H. Goddard 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28