Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-05382/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-05382-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05382-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO EXTEND THE FACT 

DISCOVERY CUTOFF FOR

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

[Re: ECF 63]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Fact Discovery Cutoff for Additional 

Depositions (“Motion”). Motion, ECF 63. Fact discovery in this action closed on June 3, 2019. 

See ECF 52 at 4. Plaintiff “moves the Court for an order extending the fact discovery cut-off 

deadline only to take depositions [] to August 1, 2019.” Motion at 1. No other deadlines would 

be affected. See id. Defendants oppose on the grounds that “Plaintiff fails to present any ‘good 

cause’ to extend the schedule as required by Rule 16.” See Opp’n at 1, ECF 67. For the reasons 

stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 

A party seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good cause” for such relief. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.”). A “good cause determination focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party.” 

Yeager v. Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Courts may take into account any resulting 

prejudice to the opposing party, but “the focus of the [Rule 16(b)] inquiry is upon the moving 

party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . [i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) aff’d 

sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

Case 5:17-cv-05382-BLF Document 68 Filed 06/10/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

The Court previously granted the parties’ stipulation to extend the fact discovery deadline 

from May 1, 2019, to June 3, 2019. See ECF 52 at 4. Plaintiff argues there is good cause to 

further extend the fact discovery deadline to August 1, 2019, for taking depositions because 

“[w]ithout this limited extension [Plaintiff] will be deprived of the opportunity to discover facts 

about persons only identified as percipient witnesses within the last month.” See Motion at 3. 

Plaintiff notes that from April 22, 2019, to June 3, 2019, Defendants disclosed nineteen additional 

witnesses in their amended Rule 26 disclosures. See Motion at 1–2; see also Baker Decl. ¶ 2. 

Some of these witnesses “came as a surprise.” Baker Decl. ¶ 2. Between April 22 and June 3, the 

parties completed the depositions of six of these individuals, but others have not been deposed 

(and some have yet to be located). See Baker Decl. ¶¶ 3–4. Defendants counter that “Plaintiff 

cannot meet the burden of establishing good cause because it has not been diligent.” See Opp’n 

at 3. The Court disagrees. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

has shown “good cause” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) to modify the fact discovery deadline for 

taking depositions. The Court rejects Defendants’ alternative proposal to extend discovery that is 

not limited in scope. See Opp’n at 5. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby GRANTED. The fact discovery cut-off deadline 

shall be extended to August 1, 2019, for the limited purpose of enabling the parties to complete 

depositions of individuals disclosed in the parties’ respective Rule 26 disclosures and to resolve 

current discovery disputes, including those pending before Magistrate Judge van Keulen, and, if

ordered, to engage in further discovery arising from those disputes. 

The Court also notes that both parties’ briefing fails to comply with the undersigned’s 

standing order that requires any and all footnotes to by no less than 12-point font and doublespaced. See Standing Order re Civil Cases ¶ IV.F. Any future briefing that fails to comply with 

the standing order will be stricken. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-05382-BLF Document 68 Filed 06/10/19 Page 2 of 2