Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02349/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02349-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

LL B SHEET 1, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. LOSKUTOFF,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02349-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE 

SCHEDULE

[Re: ECF 73]

On October 3, 2018, Defendant Michael J. Loskutoff (“Defendant”) filed a motion seeking 

leave to augment his expert disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 37. See Mot., ECF 73. Pursuant 

to the case management order in this case, expert disclosures were due on September 10, 2018. 

See ECF 56. Defendant failed to timely disclose his expert report by that deadline. On October 

11, 2018, the Court construed Defendant’s motion to be a motion to modify the case schedule 

under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4), which requires good cause and the Court’s consent. See ECF 

77. Plaintiff LL B Sheet 1, LLC (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. Defendant served his expert 

report on Plaintiff on October 9, 2018.

The Court finds good cause to extend the deadline. Defendant’s failure to meet the 

deadline was the result of a calendaring error and his retained expert’s surprise unwillingness to 

participate at trial. See Mot. at 3; Marsh Decl. ISO Mot. ¶ 4, ECF 74. Defendant’s failure to 

timely disclose was the product of excusable negligence, not a willful attempt to avoid Courtordered deadlines. See Marsh Decl. ¶ 2. Immediately upon discovering the calendaring error, 

Defendant informed Plaintiff of the issue, gave Plaintiff notice of an expected delivery date, and 

offered to work with Plaintiff to cure any possible prejudice. See id. ¶¶ 2, 6. He then worked with 

a new expert and was able to produce and disclose a report just a few weeks after the deadline. 

Case 5:16-cv-02349-BLF Document 86 Filed 11/01/18 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

See generally Marsh Decl. Defendant thus was diligent in his attempts to cure his neglect.

Moreover, this failure will not prejudice Plaintiff. Trial is set for this case in April of 

2019, and though fact discovery closed on August 18, 2018, the deadline to take several additional 

depositions is not until December 31, 2018. See ECF 56, 68. The delay of four weeks some seven 

months before trial will not prejudice Plaintiff, especially in light of the fact that fact discovery has 

not fully closed and Defendant provided notice and updates to Plaintiff on the status of the

disclosure throughout the month in which he delayed. See Marsh Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. Plaintiff argues it 

will be prejudiced because it cannot complete discovery before the current discovery cut-off of 

November 9, 2018, see Opp. at 7–8, ECF 79, but the Court will move that date as discussed 

below. By contrast, Defendant could be substantially prejudiced if the Court were to foreclose his 

ability to proffer expert testimony, as his expert is opining on the standard of care for due 

diligence in the purchase of lease rights to cellular towers as well as the valuation of Defendant’s 

lease rights. See Marsh Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff’s concern that Defendant’s new expert may rely on 

previously withheld documents upon which attorney-client privilege was asserted is a serious 

issue. However, it is best addressed through a motion in limine to exclude any such opinions.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to modify the case 

schedule. Because Plaintiff has now had Defendant’s expert report for nearly a month, the 

deadline for Plaintiff to serve its expert rebuttal report is November 16, 2018. The expert 

discovery cut-off date is December 17, 2018. The Court will not move the last day to hear 

dispositive motions. Such a schedule change would cause a substantial trial delay due to the 

already over-burdened trial schedule of the Court. Defendant is ordered to comply quickly and 

comprehensively to any expert discovery request by Plaintiff. Finally, the Court does not find 

Defendant’s behavior here worthy of sanctions under Rule 16(f). Plaintiff’s request for fees 

related to expert discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02349-BLF Document 86 Filed 11/01/18 Page 2 of 2