Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00425/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00425-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(a) Injunction against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

---

1 

18cv425-WQH(BLM) 

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 

OXFORD GLOBAL RESOURCES, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ONPOINT HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., a 

California corporation, et al., 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv425-WQH(BLM) 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 

AND RELATED DATES 

[ECF No. 35] 

On November 13, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting the Court to extend 

discovery cutoff and related dates for a second time.1 ECF No. 35. The parties seek to extend 

the deadlines for (1) fact discovery from November 16, 2018 to February 14, 2019, and (2) the 

remaining and corresponding dates as necessary. Id. at 2. The parties state they are mindful 

of the Court’s prior Order, which denied the ninety day request and granted a thirty day 

extension instead. Id. However, the parties contend that “[p]erhaps unwisely, [they] did not 

anticipate that their prior stipulated request for a 90-day extension . . . would be rejected given 

the relative youth of this 2018 case,” and “did not outline for the Court in detail the numerous 

                                                      

1 On October 1, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation to extend discovery cutoff dates, 

specifically requesting a ninety day extension for the fact discovery deadline. ECF No. 32. The 

parties failed to establish good cause for a ninety day extension, but the Court granted a thirty 

day extension based on defense counsel’s schedule and resources. ECF No. 34 at 2. 

Case 3:18-cv-00425-WQH-BLM Document 36 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

18cv425-WQH(BLM) 

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

additional reasons” necessitating a ninety day extension. Id. at 2–3. The parties state that 

“while [they] appreciate the Court’s brief extension to November 16, 2018 . . . most of this 

extension was comprised of counsel’s jury trial” making coordinated discovery and deposition 

efforts “largely impossible.” Id. at 9. 

The parties seek the extension for the following reasons: 

[T]o (1) allow all parties to complete all necessary discovery, including several 

depositions and production of voluminous ESI records from both sides, (2) allow 

for proper coordination of the dates and deadlines in this action with the 

corresponding JAMS arbitration action involving identical parties and issues which 

has a March 31, 2019 discovery cutoff and a May 6 final hearing date, (3) allow 

the Parties to continue their current exploration of resolving the matter through 

private mediation without needless expenditure of costs and judicial resources, 

and (4) avoid the extreme prejudice, burden, and expense to all parties and 

counsel that would result if forced to comply with the currently pending November 

16, 2018 discovery cutoff. 

Id. at 2. In support, the parties contend had they “[a]nticipated the substantial amount 

of ESI to be collected, reviewed, catalogued, and produced in this matter,” they “would have 

proposed a far-longer discovery period of approximately one year or more in their initial joint 

scheduling report . . . .” Id. at 8. In addition, the parties argue that despite due diligence and 

good faith efforts: 

[C]ertain key witnesses have been unavailable for depositions, numerous 

document discovery remains to be conducted, third-party deponents have 

objected to subpoena and document requests, a corresponding JAMS action is 

ongoing concerning nearly identical issues, Defendants counsel has spent the 

majority of the brief first extension in a lengthy and unavoidable trial (and was 

thus unable to devote substantial time or resources to this matter) and extensive 

additional meet and confer is needed before written and oral discovery can be 

completed. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel also now has a jury trial pending in 

Orange County Superior Court . . . set to begin on December 3, 2018. 

Id. at 8–9. Furthermore, the parties claim that throughout the first four months 

of the case, they “were engaged in extensive Injunction Motion briefing and JAMS 

pleading concerns and initial matters . . . and the initial discovery window was 

exceptionally small for a case involving several parties, and several gigabytes of electronic 

trade secret and email correspondence data.” Id. at 5. The parties explain that between 

Case 3:18-cv-00425-WQH-BLM Document 36 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

18cv425-WQH(BLM) 

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

April and May 2018, they researched, briefed, and prepared for the Court to hear 

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Id. at 3; see also ECF Nos. 13, 16, and 17. 

The parties further argue that “[h]ad the Injunction Motion been granted . . . a concurrent 

arbitration against [certain] OnPoint employees may not have been necessary.” Id. at 4. 

When the injunction was denied, “Oxford was forced to alter its litigation and discovery 

strategy, initiate arbitration, and coordinate an information exchange on identical claims 

and issues in two separate forums.” Id. at 4. During this time, the parties “also continued 

to meet and confer on discovery issues, confidentiality concerns, and ESI protocol,” and 

“submitted their proposed joint motion for protective order” for the same. Id. at 3. 

The parties contend that an extension will allow them “to focus on their currently 

proposed private mediation in December without unnecessary expense of time, money, and 

judicial resources.” Id. at 10. Finally, the parties argue they “will be severely prejudiced if they 

are not afforded adequate time to propound all necessary discovery, take depositions of relevant 

witnesses” and consult with experts. Id. at 9. 

 Despite the parties’ lack of diligence, the Court will grant one last continuance. The Court 

grants the parties’ motion as follows: 

Event Current Deadline New Deadline 

Fact Discovery November 16, 2018 February 14, 2019 

Expert Reports December 7, 2018 March 8, 2019 

Rebuttal Expert Reports December 28, 2018 March 29, 2019 

Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) Disclosures December 7, 2018 March 8, 2019 

Supplemental Disclosures December 28, 2018 March 29, 2019 

Expert Discovery January 18, 2019 April 19, 2019 

Dispositive Motions January 30, 2019 May 1, 2019 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Requirements April 22, 2019 July 22, 2019 

Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) Meeting April 29, 2019 July 29, 2019 

Draft Pretrial Order May 6, 2019 August 5, 2019 

Case 3:18-cv-00425-WQH-BLM Document 36 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

18cv425-WQH(BLM) 

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

Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order 

& Objections to Pretrial Disclosures 

May 13, 2019 August 12, 2019 

Pretrial Conference May 17, 2019 

at 11:00 a.m. 

August 16, 2019 

at 11:00 a.m. 

All other guidelines and requirements shall remain as previously set. See ECF No. 15. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 11/15/2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00425-WQH-BLM Document 36 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4