Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

ROBERT HEATH, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE 

MOTIONS TO COMPEL; LIFTING 

STAY OF DEADLINE

On September 25, 2018, Plaintiffs administratively moved to extend the deadline to file 

motions to compel from September 28, 2018 to October 5, 2018. Mot. at 1, ECF 379. Plaintiffs 

argued that Defendant had refused to meet and confer sufficiently in advance of the September 28 

deadline to allow them adequate time to draft their motions to compel. See generally id. Because 

Defendant’s opposition was not due until October 1, 2018, the Court stayed the deadline to file 

motions to compel until after it decided the present motion. See ECF 383. In response, Defendant 

argued that Plaintiffs’ predicament was self-inflicted because Plaintiffs waited until the final day 

possible to serve written discovery on Defendant, thus creating the shortest possible window in 

which to meet and confer and draft motions to compel—7 days. See generally Opp., ECF 387. 

Because Defendant’s lead counsel was in trial but was required to attend the meet and confer 

under Judge DeMarchi’s Standing Order, Defendant could not meet and confer sufficiently in 

advance of the deadline to satisfy Plaintiffs. Id. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ service of 

discovery requests on the last possible day demonstrates a lack of diligence that does not warrant 

extension of the deadline. Id. at 3–5.

Modification of a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b), and good cause requires a showing of due diligence. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 390 Filed 10/03/18 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

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); Thomason v. City of Fowler, No. 1:13-CV-00336-AWI, 

2014 WL 4436385, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014). The Court agrees with Google that Plaintiffs 

have not demonstrated good cause for extending the motion to compel deadline, given that their 

service of discovery requests on the final possible day forced them to request a meet and confer 

with Google before Google had even had a chance to serve its responses. See Opp. at 1–2. As 

such, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and the stay of the deadline is LIFTED. The Court granted 

the stay on September 26, 2018, two days before the September 28 deadline. As such, any 

motions to compel in this case are due on or before October 5, 2018, two days from the issuance 

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 390 Filed 10/03/18 Page 2 of 2