Melissa Reinhart v. Dodge Data and Analytics, LLC; Does 1 to 15, inclusive

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01497
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 MELISSA REINHART, Case No.: 3:25-cv-01497-DMS-VET 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 v. MOTION TO CONTINUE 13 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT DODGE DATA AND ANALYTICS, CONFERENCE AND FACT 14 LLC; DOES 1 to 15, inclusive, DISCOVERY DEADLINE

15 Defendants.

16 [ECF No. 15] 17 18 19 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the April 15, 2026 20 Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) and the Fact Discovery Deadline (“Joint 21 Motion”). ECF No. 15. The parties propose extending the MSC and fact discovery deadline 22 by 60 days. Id. at 2. The parties explain that they “have been actively engaged in written 23 discovery” but there have been some delays that have pushed out the scheduling of 24 depositions. Id. at 2. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS the parties’ 25 Joint Motion. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARD 27 In determining whether to modify a scheduling order, the Court considers the “good 28 cause” standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 16(b)(4). Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4), a “schedule may be modified only for good cause and 2 with the judge’s consent.” Id. (emphasis added); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 3 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the pretrial scheduling order can only be modified upon a 4 showing of good cause”). Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” standard “primarily considers the 5 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc. (In re W. States 6 Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig.), 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district 7 court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence 8 of the party seeking the extension.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 9 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s notes on the 1983 10 amendment); see also Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087. The focus of the inquiry is upon the 11 moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. Id; Adrian v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 686 12 Fed. Appx. 403, 405 (9th Cir. 2017) (applied to joint motions); Neidermeyer v. Caldwell, 13 718 Fed. Appx. 485, 489 (9th Cir. 2017) (moving party did not show good cause when he 14 “offered no explanation for his undue delay”). 15 Further, the required showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed 16 throughout the entire period of time already allowed. See, e.g., Muniz v. United Parcel 17 Serv., Inc., 731 F.Supp.2d 961, 967 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Krohne Fund, LP v. Simonsen, 681 18 Fed. Appx. 635, 638 (9th Cir. 2017); Lyles v. Dollar Rent a Car, Inc., 849 Fed. Appx. 659, 19 661 (9th Cir. 2021). “If the moving party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 20 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. D.M.S.I., LLC, 871 F.3d 751, 764 21 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). Further, Civil Local Rule 16.1(b) requires that all counsel “proceed 22 with diligence to take all steps necessary to bring an action to readiness for trial.” CivLR 23 16.1(b). 24 II. ANALYSIS 25 The Court’s Scheduling Order was issued on August 21, 2025. ECF No. 11. In the 26 Joint Motion, the parties describe some of the discovery efforts that have taken place to 27 date including engaging in “written discovery and in meet-and-confer efforts aimed at 28 resolving deficiencies in the parties’ discovery responses.” ECF No. 15 at 2. The Court 1 ||appreciates the parties’ efforts to work together but emphasizes the importance of 2 preventing any unnecessary delay. The main reason for the requested continuance seems 3 ||to be the depositions of Defendant’s corporate representatives who all have scheduling 4 ||constraints. The Court understands it can be difficult to schedule depositions but 5 || encourages the parties to work together to get all depositions scheduled as soon as possible. 6 || The parties are only requesting a continuance of the MSC and the fact discovery deadline, 7 no other case management deadlines will be affected. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 8 Joint Motion and ORDERS as follows: 9 1. The Court hereby VACATES the MSC set for April 15, 2026 and related 10 deadlines. 11 2. The fact discovery deadline is CONTINUED from March 23, 2026 to May 22, 12 2026. 13 3. The Court SETS a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) by Zoom video 14 conferencing for July 30, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. 15 Torres. By no later than July 23, 2026, each party must lodge a Confidential 16 Settlement Brief by email to efile_torres@casd.uscourts.gov. 17 4. All other deadlines in the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 11), including without 18 limitation expert discovery deadlines, remain in effect. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. | - SK 21 Dated: March 23, 2026 9 Honorable Valerie E. Torres United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28