Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00058/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00058-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1 

19-CV-58-BAS(WVG) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REZA PAYDAR et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH 

AMERICA, LLC, 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 19-CV-58-BAS(WVG) 

ORDER DENYING SECOND JOINT 

MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT 

DISCLOSURE DEADLINE 

[Doc. No. 27.]

For the second time, the parties’ jointly move to extend the deadline to exchange 

expert disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). When the Court granted 

the first request on September 12, 2019, the Court expressly admonished that “[n]o other 

requests to extend dates to allow the parties to finalize the settlement will be entertained or 

granted.” (Doc. No. 26.) Yet the parties now seek extension of the same deadline and 

proffer “client unavailability and a miscommunication between the parties regarding the 

specifics of a settlement offer to repurchase the subject vehicel [sic]” as supposed good 

cause. (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) The motion is DENIED not only because the Court previously 

placed the parties on notice that no other extensions would be granted, but also because the 

proffered bases for the request fall woefully short of good cause. Additionally, the Court 

finds the motion is untimely given that it was filed the day before the extended deadline is 

set to expire. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 8, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-00058-BAS-WVG Document 28 Filed 10/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 1