Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02328/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02328-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

16CV2328-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 

NUTRITION DISTRIBUTION LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PEP RESEARCH, LLC, BRIAN REYNDERS, 

FRED REYNDERS, AND DOES 1-10, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 16CV2328-WQH(BLM) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 

TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES 

[ECF No. 32] 

 

On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Application to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend 

Discovery Deadlines. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff seeks to continue the current pretrial deadlines by 

sixty days. Id. at 2. In support, Plaintiff states that good cause exists to continue the deadlines 

because “despite its due diligence, Plaintiff was unable to meet the April 6, 2018 discovery 

deadline set forth in the Court’s scheduling order.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff notes that it propounded 

discovery just ten days after the Court issued its scheduling order and immediately followed up 

with Defendants when it received responses that it felt were inadequate. Id. at 4-5. After 

several attempts to meet and confer, the parties were still unable to resolve their issues and 

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on January 31, 2018, which the Court granted in part on March 

9, 2018. Id. at 5. In further support, Plaintiff states that Defendants failed to produce all 

documents as ordered by the Court and that Plaintiff was unable to complete the deposition of 

Case 3:16-cv-02328-WQH-BLM Document 34 Filed 04/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

16CV2328-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

Defendant Brian Reynders because Mr. Reynders “failed to cooperate by having his mother 

present in the deposition, having his mother discuss responses to the questions, and refusing to 

respond to questions.” Id. “Plaintiff still needs additional time to complete fact discovery to 

complete depositions, and obtain the remaining documents compelled by the Court’s Order.” 

Id. Plaintiff notes that neither party will be prejudiced by the requested continuance and that 

there have been no previous requests to modify the scheduling order. Id. at 6. 

Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on April 10, 2018.1 ECF No. 33. Defendants 

contend that Plaintiff has not been diligent in conducting discovery as evidenced by the fact that 

it noticed its deposition of Defendant Brian Reynders for a few days before the close of fact 

discovery. Id. at 1. Defendants also contend that Mr. Reynders deposition was cut short 

because Plaintiff’s counsel “left the deposition abruptly and did not return” despite the fact that 

defense counsel had asked Mr. Reynders’ mother to leave the room so that the deposition could 

continue.2 Id. at 2. Defendants further contend that Plaintiff was not diligent because once Mr. 

Reynders deposition began, Plaintiff’s counsel realized that he would need to notice an additional 

deposition for another person. Id. at 3. Defendants state that Plaintiff improperly discusses 

pervious discovery disputes in the instant motion that should have no bearing on this issue. Id. 

at 2. Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer regarding the 

motion as required by Civil Local Rue 26.13 and “never even tried to arrange a joint call as 

                                                      

1 Magistrate Judge Barbara Major’s Chambers Rules state that “[a]fter service of the ex parte

application, opposing counsel will ordinarily be given until 5:00 p.m. on the next business day 

to respond. If more time is needed, opposing counsel must call the law clerk assigned to the 

case to modify the schedule.” See Judge Major’s Chambers Rules located at 

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/SitePages/Home.aspx. Plaintiff’s motion was filed and 

served on April 6, 2018. ECF No. 32. Defense counsel did not contact the Court for additional 

time to oppose the motion. 

2 Defendants note that Mr. Reynders’ mother attended the deposition because Mr. Reynders 

“has severe attention deficit disorder, and his mother, Barbara Reynders, is essentially his 

caretaker.” ECF No. 33 at 2. 

3 Civil Local Rule 26.1 is entitled “Deposition and Discovery” and requires parties to meet and 

confer regarding motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 – 37. The instant motion is not a 

Case 3:16-cv-02328-WQH-BLM Document 34 Filed 04/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

16CV2328-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

required in this Court’s Chambers Rules.”4 Id. at 3. Defendants state that Plaintiff’s counsel 

was aware that defense counsel was on vacation and unable to timely respond to Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s email regarding the possible filing of the ex parte application. Id. Defendants note 

that “[a]ny extension of discovery will greatly prejudice the Defendants, both personally and 

professionally by delaying this case any further, as the pending litigation has made it extremely 

difficult for Defendants to operate their small business.” Id. at 4. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Once a Rule 16 scheduling order is issued, dates set forth therein may be modified only 

“for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Rule 16 good 

cause standard focuses on the “reasonable diligence” of the moving party. Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 

488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.6 (9th Cir. 2007); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-

95 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating Rule 16(b) scheduling order may be modified for “good cause” based 

primarily on diligence of moving party). Essentially, “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving 

party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 

609 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a court also may consider the “existence or degree of prejudice 

to the party opposing the modification . . . .” Id. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

                                                      

motion to compel or a discovery motion. It is a motion to amend the scheduling order pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and, therefore, Civil Local Rule 26.1 in inapplicable. See Civil Local Rule 

26.1(a) (“The court will entertain no motion pursuant to Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., 

unless counsel will have previously met and conferred concerning all disputed issues.”). 

4 Magistrate Judge Barbara Major’s Chambers Rules require the parties to jointly contact the 

Court regarding discovery disputes. See Judge Major’s Chambers Rules located at 

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/SitePages/Home.aspx (stating that “[i]f the parties meet 

and confer but fail to resolve their [discovery] dispute through the meet and confer process, 

then counsel for all parties are required to determine a mutually agreeable time to conduct a 

conference call with Chambers.”). There is no such requirement for ex parte Motions. See id. 

(“[a]ppropriate ex parte applications, which generally do not include discovery disputes, may be 

filed only after contacting chambers and speaking with a law clerk.”). 

Case 3:16-cv-02328-WQH-BLM Document 34 Filed 04/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

16CV2328-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

ANALYSIS 

 The discovery disputes raised in the instant motion are not currently before this Court 

and, as such, the Court makes no findings as to which party behaved more poorly during 

Defendant Reynders’ deposition or whether or not Defendants have complied with this Court’s 

March 9, 2018 discovery order [see ECF No. 30]. As such, the Court has no reason to find that 

Plaintiff has not been diligent in litigating this case. Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, the fact 

that Plaintiff deposed Defendant Reynders four days before the close of discovery alone, does 

not demonstrate a lack of diligence. In granting the motion in part and not ordering a sixty day 

continuance as requested, the Court is recognizing the prejudice that Defendants contend they 

will suffer if discovery is extended. 

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 

 Current Deadline New Deadline 

Fact Discovery April 6, 2018 May 7, 2018 

Expert Designation May 4, 2018 June 4, 2018 

Rebuttal Experts June 1, 2018 July 2, 2018 

Expert Disclosures May 4, 2018 June 4, 2018 

Supplemental Disclosures June 1, 2018 July 2, 2018 

Expert Discovery June 29, 2018 July 30, 2018 

Pretrial Motion Filing July 27, 2018 August 27, 2018 

Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) September 20, 2018 October 22, 2018 

 at 1:30 p.m. at 1:30 p.m. 

 

MSC Briefs September 10, 2018 October 12, 2018 

Pretrial Disclosure November 2, 2018 December 7, 2018 

Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law November 2, 2018 December 7, 2018 

L.R. 16.1(f)(4) Meeting November 9, 2018 December 14, 2018 

Exchange Proposed Pretrial Order November 16, 2018 December 21, 2018 

Lodge Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order November 23, 2018 December 28, 2018 

Case 3:16-cv-02328-WQH-BLM Document 34 Filed 04/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

16CV2328-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

Final Pretrial Conference November 30, 2018 January 4, 2019 

 at 11:00 a.m. at 11:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 4/16/2018 

Case 3:16-cv-02328-WQH-BLM Document 34 Filed 04/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5