Thomas Boyer v. Novo Nordisk Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01866
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS BOYER, No. 2:24-cv-01866-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NOVO NORDISK INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Thomas Boyer has sued Defendant Novo Nordisk, alleging 18 discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination. Fact discovery 19 closed on May 15, 2025. (See ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Reopen 20 Discovery and Compel Production.1 (ECF No. 43.) Therein, Plaintiff argues that based 21 on a contract that Defendants disclosed after the discovery cutoff, the Court should 22 reopen fact discovery and permit Plaintiff to conduct additional depositions and 23 compel production of certain documents. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) states that the court must issue a 25 scheduling order that limits “the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, 26

27 1 The briefing on the Motion is filed in the form of a Joint Statement of Discovery Disagreement. While this is not typical for a motion to reopen discovery, the parties’ positions and arguments are well 28 explained within this joint statement. 1 complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Once established, the 2 “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607– 4 08 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard “primarily considers the 5 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609. “Good cause may be 6 found to exist where the moving party shows that it diligently assisted the court with 7 creating a workable scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the scheduling 8 order's deadlines due to matters that could not have reasonably been foreseen at the 9 time of the issuance of the scheduling order, and that it was diligent in seeking an 10 amendment once it became apparent that the party could not comply with the 11 scheduling order.” Kuschner v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 684, 687 (E.D. Cal. 12 2009). “If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 13 609. 14 Plaintiff has not established good cause to modify the scheduling order to 15 reopen discovery. The Ninth Circuit has instructed that district courts consider six 16 factors when ruling on a motion to modify a scheduling order to reopen discovery: 17 1) whether trial is imminent 18 2) whether the request is opposed, 19 3) whether the non-moving party would be prejudiced, 20 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the 21 guidelines established by the court, 22 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time 23 allowed for discovery by the district court, and 24 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence. 25 City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2017). 26 Here, these factors weigh against reopening discovery. First, the request is 27 opposed by Defendant. Second, Defendant would be prejudiced as they would need 28 to make deponents available for additional depositions and potentially be forced to 1 | delay ongoing summary judgment briefing. Third, Plaintiff's diligence was mixed. 2 | While Plaintiff sought the contract that prompted this request before the discovery 3 | deadline, Plaintiff never sought to compel production before fact discovery closed. 4 | Fourth, related to the prior point, it was foreseeable that disclosure of that contract 5 | would necessitate further discovery. Fifth, it does not appear likely that further 6 | discovery will lead to relevant evidence. Plaintiff contends that the information “is 7 | relevant to show that after Plaintiff complained, and Defendant Novo Nordisk ignored 8 | his complaints and concerns...." (ECF No. 43-1 at 6.) However, Plaintiff does not 9 | explain how information such as invoices, draft contracts, and all communications 10 | between Defendant and a third party would help to establish these facts, nor does 11 | Plaintiff explain how additional deposition testimony would be helpful in this regard. 12 The only factor that weighs in Plaintiff's favor is the imminence of trial, which is 13 | presently not scheduled until April 20, 2026. But this only weighs weakly in Plaintiff's 14 | favor, given that dispositive motion practice has already begun, and the other factors 15 | discussed above all weigh against reopening discovery. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen 17 | Discovery and Compel Production (ECF No. 43) is DENIED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 | Dated: _ October 1, 2025 Donel J Coo tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28