Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00096/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00096-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:0001 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

: 1 ' ' 

1' c:." r ·J· l .>' - t IL .... , n.-,,;.

 L ..

 

1'7 N©V 17 PM 3: 59 

; · ,, .• I 1)'�2Tr'"'\J:iT 

'' ..

 ,� t,, -"/vttNL 

.... LC Olli'H-T . 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF 

REAL TORS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SANDICOR INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION TO AMEND 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

[Doc. No. 84] 

19 Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion Regarding Proposed Amendments to 

20 the Scheduling Order. [Doc. No. 84]. Plaintiff, San Diego Association of Realtors 

21 ("SDAR"), requests the Court amend the Scheduling Order to extend the fact discovery 

22 cut-off date by sixty (60) days in light of its pending Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 

23 [Doc. No. 79], and not-yet-completed document productions by defendants. [Doc. No. 84, 

24 at pp. 4-6]. Defendants oppose, arguing, inter alia, plaintiffs request is a product of neither 

25 diligently prosecuting the case, nor adhering to the discovery deadlines identified by the 

26 Court. [Id. at pp. 13-17]. Defendants further argue SDAR's decision not to produce 

27 witnesses for two noticed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) depositions was in 

28 "complete disregard of [SDAR's] discovery obligations." [Id. at p. 17]. For the reasons 

I 

3: l 6-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC Document 86 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 discussed below, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's request to continue the discovery cut-off 

2 date by sixty (60) days. 

3 DISCUSSION 

4 This Court issued an Order resolving a discovery dispute between the parties on 

5 September 29, 2017. [Doc. No. 78]. In that Order, the Court granted SDAR leave to file a 

6 motion to amend the pleadings because SDAR "clarified that it began to devote resources 

7 to create Just Knock in 2014, and not 2009 as previously alleged." [Id. at p. 7]. Consistent 

8 with that acknowledgement, this Court wrote: "[a]ssuming the [Third Amended 

9 Complaint] is amended in accordance with plaintiff's representations, the production of 

10 responsive documents by plaintiff would be limited to entities with relevant information 

11 regarding the efforts to create Just Knock, and on a timeline consistent with efforts that 

12 allegedly began in 2014, rather than 2009." [Id.]. SDAR has filed such a Motion to 

13 Amend, which has not yet been fully briefed, and thus awaits a ruling from the District 

14 Court. [Doc. No. 79]. 

15 This Court understands the instant dispute to tum, primarily, on two issues: (1) the 

16 allegedly tardy document productions by defendants in response to requests for productions 

17 issued by plaintiff; and, (2) inappropriate decisions by plaintiff not to produce witnesses 

18 for two duly-noticed, Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. [Doc. No. 84]. For the reasons set forth 

19 in this Order, the Court is extending the discovery cut-off date by sixty days. While the 

20 pending Motion to Amend does not serve to stay discovery, it is, at the very least, relevant 

21 as to how discovery ought to proceed at this time. To the extent there is any incomplete 

22 discovery unrelated to the timeline at issue in the pending Motion to Amend, the Court 

23 expects such discovery to be completed within the sixty-day extension ordered herein. 

24 Defendants noticed a total of five depositions of SDAR witnesses. [Doc. No. 84, at 

25 p. 7]. Three of these witnesses, according to SDAR, "are financial-services employees [] 

26 whose only potential relevance is through their knowledge of SDAR financials." [Id.]. 

27 SDAR contends, inter alia, in the Joint Motion that the depositions of the three financial28 services employees should be put off until after the District Court rules on the pending 

2 

3: l 6-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC Document 86 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 Motion to Amend, as the scope of relevant discovery is, as related to the pertinent time 

2 period, currently unsettled. [Doc. No. 84, at pp. 6-7]. This Court agrees. Accordingly, the 

3 parties should withhold conducting the depositions of the financial-services employees 

4 until Judge Anello rules on the pending Motion to Amend. 

5 Any deposition that does not implicate the amended timeline must be taken within 

6 the sixty-day extension granted by this Court. This includes, but is not limited to: (1) the 

7 depositions of plaintiffs witnesses regarding topics unrelated to any pre-2014 efforts to 

8 create Just Knock; and, (2) the nan-financial services employee depositions n oticed by 

9 defendants. The sixty-day extension provides adequate time for the parties to exchange 

10 any remaining discovery, review the materials, and conduct the depositions on issues not 

11 implicated by the pending Motion to Amend. 

12 CONCLUSION 

13 The Court GRANTS plaintiffs request for a sixty (60) day extension of the 

14 discovery cut-off date. 

15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the renewed discovery cut-off date is January 19, 2018. 

16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic Status Conference will be held before 

17 Judge Crawford on January 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM. Counsel for plaintiff shall initiate the 

18 conference by calling Judge Crawford's chambers at the appointed time with all counsel 

19 on the line. 

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

21 Dated: November 17, 2017 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

3: 16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC 

Case 3:16-cv-00096-MMA-KSC Document 86 Filed 11/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3