Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00425/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00425-1/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 

18cv0425-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. 

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv0425-WQH(BLM) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY 

CUTOFF DATES 

[ECF No. 32] 

 

On October 1, 2018, the parties filed a “STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY CUTOFF 

DATES AND ORDER.” ECF No. 32. The parties seek to extend the fact discovery deadline by 

ninety days, from October 17, 2018 until January 31, 2018. Id. at 1, 2, 5. In support, the 

parties state that “[s]ince the April 27, 2018 Scheduling Order was entered in this matter, a trial 

in a San Diego Superior Court financial elder abuse and legal malpractice case in which defense 

counsel represents the plaintiff was set for a date certain to begin on October 22, 2018 and is 

anticipated to last at least two weeks.” Id. at 3. In further support, the parties state that 

“[d]efense counsel’s firm is comprised of three attorneys” and that their “calendar for the month 

of October is now consumed with preparing for and trying [that case].” Id. The parties also 

note that “a related action is currently pending in arbitration through JAMS.” Id. at 4. The 

Case 3:18-cv-00425-WQH-BLM Document 34 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv0425-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

parties state that they have “agreed that, for the purposes of discovery, the discovery conducted 

in the arbitration would be coordinated with the Federal Court matter to promote efficiency and 

economy.” Id. However, “[n]o discovery deadline dates have been imposed in the binding 

arbitration matter and the parties are scheduled for the Follow-Up Hearing on November 2, 

2018.” Id. 

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); see also ECF No. 15 at 

5 (stating that dates and times “will not be modified except for good cause shown”). 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. 

The parties have failed to establish good cause for continuing the remaining deadlines by 

ninety days. The parties have not demonstrated diligence. For example, Plaintiff did not serve 

any discovery in this case until September 6, 2018. ECF No. 30 at 3. Additionally, there is no 

basis to delay this case in order to coordinate with the related arbitration, especially since the 

next hearing in the arbitration is not until November 2, 2018. Id. at 4. However, given the 

current status of the case and because defense counsel’s firm is comprised of three attorneys 

and has an upcoming trial, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the parties a short continuance 

of the deadlines. Accordingly, the parties’ motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 

 Current Deadline New Deadline

Fact Discovery October 17, 2018 November 16, 2018 

Expert Reports October 26, 2018 December 7, 2018 

Rebuttal Expert Reports November 9, 2018 December 28, 2018 

Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) Disclosures October 26, 2018 December 7, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00425-WQH-BLM Document 34 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv0425-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

Supplemental Disclosures November 9, 2018 December 28, 2018 

Expert Discovery November 30, 2018 January 18, 2019 

Dispositive Motions December 30, 2018 January 30, 2019 

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

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

Draft Pretrial Order April 5, 2019 May 6, 2019 

Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order April 12, 2019 May 13, 2019 

& Objections to Pretrial Disclosures 

Pretrial Conference April 19, 2019 May 17, 2019 

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

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

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/2/2018 

Case 3:18-cv-00425-WQH-BLM Document 34 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3