Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00368/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00368-17/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karl Domm
Counter Claimant
Markus Heitkoetter
Counter Defendant
Rockwell Trading Services, LLC
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARKUS HEITKOETTER, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KARL DOMM,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY 

THE SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT 

TO FRCP 16(b)(4)

(Doc. 123)

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Karl Domm’s motion to modify the 

scheduling order to continue discovery deadlines, the pretrial conference, and trial. (Doc. 123.) 

Plaintiffs Markus Heitkoetter and Rockwell Trading Services, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) filed their 

opposition but noted that they do not oppose a limited extension of non-expert discovery. (Doc. 

127 at 3.) Defendant subsequently filed his reply. (Doc. 128.)

Having considered the moving papers, along with the record in this case, the motion will 

be granted, in part, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).

I. Brief Factual and Procedural Background

In the interest of brevity, the Court highlights pertinent parts of the case background. 

Plaintiffs Markus Heitkoetter and Rockwell Trading Services, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) bring several 

claims sounding in defamation against Defendant Karl Domm based on allegations that he 

published injurious falsehoods about Plaintiffs’ investment program through videos and 

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 131 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 8
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

2

comments on YouTube.1 On April 6, 2023, Defendant and Counterclaimant Karl Domm filed a 

counterclaim against Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Markus Heitkoetter and Rockwell 

Trading Services, LLC alleging: (1) False Advertising pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B); and 

(2) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 

17200. (Doc. 46.) 

On May 2, 2023, the Court entered its scheduling conference order. (Doc. 54.) The Court 

later issued an amended scheduling conference order on February 27, 2024, setting the non-expert 

discovery cutoff for October 31, 2024; expert disclosure for November 14, 2024; supplemental 

expert disclosure for December 16, 2024; expert discovery cutoff for February 14, 2025; pretrial 

motion filing deadline for March 14, 2025; pretrial conference for August 18, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.; 

and a 6 day bench trial for October 21, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. (Doc. 93.) 

The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to strike and motion to 

dismiss on January 29, 2024. (Doc. 86.) Following that time, the parties have had numerous 

discovery disputes and appeared before the Court at an in-person status conference regarding 

discovery disputes on August 13, 2024, at which the parties represented that they had resolved all 

issues except for motions for protective orders regarding Mark Hodge and Emmett Moore. (Doc. 

107.) The parties subsequently briefed and the Court ruled on the parties’ motions for protective 

orders regarding Mark Hodge and Emmett Moore and discovery disputes. (See Docs. 119, 126, 

129.) Defendant now requests modification of the Scheduling Conference Order to continue the 

scheduled discovery dates by approximately 70-80 days. (Doc. 123.) Plaintiffs respond that 

while they “do not oppose a limited extension of the fact discovery deadline to complete any 

discovery ordered in connection with the pending discovery motions, Plaintiffs state that the 

lengthy extensions sought are otherwise unnecessary and will only serve to further delay these 

proceedings.” (Doc. 127 at 3.) Defendant filed his reply, arguing that he acted diligently in 

seeking the requested scheduling modifications. (Doc. 128.)

1 According to the operative complaint, Plaintiff Markus Heitkoetter is a successful and well-respected investor and 

trader in the stock and real estate markets. Plaintiff Heitkoetter founded Rockwell Trading which currently offers 

educational services and programs for anyone interested in investing and trading. Defendant is also an options trader 

who markets and sells a course in options trading, similar to that offered by Plaintiffs. (Doc. 60.)

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 131 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 8
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

3

II. Legal Standard

District courts enter scheduling orders in actions to “limit the time to join other parties, 

amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once 

entered, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case management problems, Johnson v. 

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992), and are “the heart of case 

management,” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). Indeed, a scheduling 

order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by 

counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Green Aire for Air Conditioning W.L.L. v. Salem, No. 

1:18-cv-00873-LJO-SKO, 2020 WL 58279, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) (“Requests to modify a 

scheduling order are governed by Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which 

provides that a court may modify a scheduling order ‘only for good cause.’”). As the Ninth 

Circuit has explained,

In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts in both the federal and state systems

routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and 

resolution of cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the deadlines are taken 

seriously by the parties, and the best way to encourage that is to enforce the 

deadlines. Parties must understand that they will pay a price for failure to comply 

strictly with the scheduling and other orders, and that failure to do so may properly 

support severe sanctions and exclusions of evidence.

Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005).

The party seeking to modify a scheduling order bears the burden of demonstrating good 

cause. Handel v. Rhoe, No. 14-cv-1930-BAS(JMA), 2015 WL 6127271, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 

2015) (citing Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 975

F.2d at 608-609). The Court may modify the scheduling order “if it cannot reasonably be met 

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If the party 

was not diligent, then the inquiry should end. Id. 

///

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 131 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 8
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

4

III. Discussion

Defendant moves to modify the scheduling order to extend the discovery dates, deadline 

for dispositive motions, pretrial conference, and trial. (Doc. 123.) Accordingly, the Court 

examines Defendant’s diligence to determine whether amendment of the Scheduling Conference 

Order is proper. Phillips-Kerley v. City of Fresno, No. 1:18-cv-00438-AWI-BAM, 2021 WL 

1966387, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 17, 2021). In determining diligence, the Court can inquire into (1) 

whether the movant was diligent in aiding the Court in creating a scheduling order, (2) whether 

matters that were not, and could not be foreseeable at the time the scheduling order was entered 

caused the need to amend, and (3) whether the movant was diligent in attempting to amend the 

scheduling order once the need to amend became apparent. Gonzalez v. Jones, No. 2:15-cv-2448-

TLN-KJN, 2020 WL 9144005, at *2 (E.D. Cal. April 13, 2020) (citation omitted).

Here, the Court finds good cause to allow for modification of the Scheduling Conference 

Order. Defendant aided the Court in creating a scheduling order, by participating in the filing of a 

Joint Scheduling Report and in a Scheduling Conference with the Court and in amending the 

Scheduling Conference Order previously. (Docs. 48, 54, 93.) As to the need to amend, the 

parties’ ongoing discovery disputes and attempts to narrow and resolve them have primarily 

arisen after the Scheduling Conference Order was amended on February 27, 2024. (See, e.g., 

Docs. 93, 96-98, 103, 107, 111, 115, 119.) Defendant notes in his motion that further time was 

necessary given the protracted discussions and eventual motions for protective orders related to 

the depositions of Mark Hodge and Emmett Moore as well as the outstanding discovery requests 

propounded by Defendant. (Doc. 123 at 2-8.) Defendant further notes that it subpoenaed Google, 

LLC for YouTube live feed records on October 10, 2024 and requires additional time to receive 

those records. (Doc. 123 at 9.) As there were two motions for protective orders related to 

depositions and the parties’ joint discovery dispute pending near the cutoff for non-expert 

discovery on October 31, 2024, Defendant filed the motion to modify the scheduling order in 

advance of that deadline, on October 21, 2024. (Docs. 93, 123.) Based on this record, Defendant

appears diligent in seeking leave to modify the Scheduling Conference Order. Accordingly, the 

Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause to amend the Scheduling Conference 

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 131 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 8
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

5

Order under Rule 16(b). 

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has not been diligent in seeking to modify the scheduling 

order, as Defendant has had adequate time to complete discovery but has prolonged the process 

and unnecessarily waited to move for modification. Plaintiffs note that Defendant has had over 

2.5 years to complete fact discovery, issued numerous subpoenas, propounded hundreds of 

written discovery requests, and completed the depositions of Plaintiff Heitkoetter and Plaintiff 

Rockwell’s representatives. (Doc. 127 at 4.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendant was aware of the 

existing discovery disputes during the in-person status conference on September 11, 2024, but did 

not move to modify the scheduling order until October 21, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiffs further state that 

following the in-person conference and further meet and confers, Defendant propounded 80 

additional requests for admission to Plaintiffs as well as two subpoenas to third parties. (Id.) 

While the parties were aware of the pending discovery disputes and anticipated motions for 

protective orders, given that the parties’ ongoing discussions and attempts to resolve their issues, 

Defendant’s filing of the motion on October 21, 2024 was sufficiently diligent.

Plaintiffs also argue that any order extending fact discovery should only be as to 

completing the two depositions of Mr. Moore and Mr. Hodge. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiffs argue that 

the Court should not allow extension of fact discovery as to Defendant’s subpoena issued to 

Google, as Plaintiffs had “advised Defendant for months of the inability to personally secure a 

copy of this video – to the extent it ever existed,” but failed to issue a subpoena to Google until 

October 11, 2024. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiffs further argue that the Court should not extend non-expert 

discovery as to the pending joint discovery dispute, as the delay was caused by Defendant’s 

overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, and disproportionate requests. (Id. at 6-7.) Defendant 

responds that he has been working diligently to secure deposition dates, Plaintiff has prolonged 

the discovery response process, and that Plaintiff only became aware in mid-September 2024 that 

Plaintiff claimed to not have the YouTube video with live feed comments sought. (Doc. 128 at 3-

7.)

The Court will extend non-expert discovery solely for the purposes of: (1)

supplementation of the discovery responses identified in its order on the parties’ discovery 

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 131 Filed 12/11/24 Page 5 of 8
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

6

dispute statement (Doc. 130); (2) completion of the depositions of Mr. Hodge and Mr. Moore; 

and (3) additional time for Defendant to attempt to secure the live feed records from Google. The 

Court identified approximately six discovery requests that Defendant was required to supplement 

on or before December 20, 2024, which should not substantively delay the case. (Doc. 130.) The 

Court also extends the non-expert discovery deadline to permit for the completion of Mr. Moore 

and Mr. Hodge as detailed in the Court’s orders which were issued shortly before and after the 

non-expert discovery deadline. (Docs. 126, 129.) Regarding the Google subpoena, the Court 

notes that the parties’ discovery dispute statements states that “On or about September 16, 2024, 

during a call with counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel suggested that a live feed might never have existed 

because Plaintiffs cannot find it.” (Doc. 119 at 11, Doc. 119-1 ¶ 17.) While Plaintiffs’ earlier 

responses indicated that they were continuing to search for the live feed, that response alerted

Defendant that Plaintiffs did not have that video and Defendant issued the subpoena shortly after. 

A brief extension of non-expert discovery for Defendant to attempt to secure that video is 

therefore warranted. The Court will accordingly extend non-expert discovery only as to these 

specifically identified purposes. Non-expert discovery otherwise closed on October 31, 2024, and 

no further follow-up fact discovery is permitted.

Plaintiffs additionally argue that the 70-to-84-day continuances Defendant requests are 

unnecessary and note that “Defendant does not explain why the limited discovery at issue would 

require seventy days to complete, nor why the remainder of the deadlines should be extended for 

over two and a half months.” (Doc. 127 at 3.) Plaintiffs only request time to complete the two 

depositions, but do not propose alternate dates. (See Doc. 127.) Given that the parties filed two 

motions for protective orders and a lengthy joint discovery dispute statement shortly before the 

non-expert discovery deadline, which have taken the Court time to resolve, the Court will modify 

its Scheduling Conference Order as outlined below.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 131 Filed 12/11/24 Page 6 of 8
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

7

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court modifies its Scheduling Conference Order (Doc. 93) as 

follows:

Event Current Date Defendant’s 

Proposed Date

Modified Date

Non-Expert 

Discovery Cutoff

October 31, 2024 January 9, 2025 January 10, 2025

only as to the limited 

purposes outlined 

above (including the 

two identified 

depositions)

Expert Disclosure November 14, 2024 January 30, 2025 January 31, 2025

Supplemental Expert 

Disclosure

December 16, 2024 March 3, 2025 February 21, 2025

Expert Discovery 

Cutoff

February 14, 2025 May 2, 2025 March 21, 2025

Pretrial Motion 

Deadline

March 14, 2025 June 6, 2025 March 31, 2025

Pretrial Conference August 18, 2025 August 18, 2025

1:30 PM

Courtroom 6 (KES)

(unchanged)

Bench Trial October 21, 2025 October 21, 2025

9:00 am

(6 Days)

Courtroom 6 (KES)

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 131 Filed 12/11/24 Page 7 of 8
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

8

(unchanged)

This order represents the best estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most 

suitable to dispose of this case. If the parties determine at any time that the schedule outlined in 

this order cannot be met, counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact so that 

adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent status conference.

The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent 

a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations 

extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are

accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate, attached exhibits, which 

establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

The failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including 

but not limited to, dismissal of this action.

Finally, the Court again notes that the parties' conduct should assist in securing the just, 

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The 

parties are admonished against unnecessarily burdening the Court's limited resources. If the 

parties are unable to meet and confer and resolve issues in good faith, the Court, in its discretion, 

may set an IN PERSON meet and confer conference in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate 

Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe, where counsel will be required to personally appear in court to 

further meet and confer to resolve the outstanding discovery issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00368-KES-BAM Document 131 Filed 12/11/24 Page 8 of 8